Designer Associates alleges that the Air Force acted in bad
faith. Designer Associates argues that the agency’s bad faith is
evidenced by, among other things, the fact that the Air Force
has changed the traditional duration of the contract here from
its normal 5-year length, with an estimated value in excess of
$6 million, to an 18-month contract, having an estimated value
of less than $3 million, thereby permitting a noncompetitive
award under the 8(a) program. See FAR § 19.805-1(a)(2).
Government officials are presumed to act in good faith and,
where a protester contends that contracting officials are
motivated by bias or bad faith, it must provide convincing
proof, since this Office will not attribute unfair or
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of
inference or suppositions. United Coatings, B-291978.2, July 7,
2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 146 at 14. Here, Designer Associates has not
provided any proof to support this allegation. Moreover, we are
unaware of any law or regulation dictating the “traditional
duration” of a contract, see New Technology Mgmt., Inc.,
B-287714.2 et al., Dec. 4, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 196 at 4, and the
record shows that the Air Force had valid reasons for limiting
the duration of the contract here as it did, including the fact
that the maintenance requirement would cease to exist with the
privatization of Hill AFB family housing, estimated to occur in
July 2004. (Designer Associates, Inc.,
B-293226, February 12, 2004) (pdf)
Purchases for an amount not greater
than the simplified acquisition threshold are expressly exempted
from the requirement that solicitations include a statement of
all significant evaluation factors and subfactors that the
agency reasonably expects to consider. 10 U.S.C. sect.
2305(a)(2)(A). Nevertheless, all procurements, including those
to which this exemption applies, must be conducted consistent
with the concern for a fair and equitable competition that is
inherent in any procurement. General Metals, Inc., B-249259 et
al., Nov. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 319 at 4. In this regard, an
agency must evaluate quotations on the basis set forth in the
RFQ. Id. (Multi-Spec
Products Corporation, B-287135, March 30, 2001)
Agency's sole-source award of
contracts for services on a monthly basis through the Small
Business Administration under the section 8(a) program, while
the agency was developing specifications for a 1-year contract
to be awarded on a sole-source basis through the section 8(a)
program is not inconsistent with the provision in Federal
Acquisition Regulation sect. 19.805-1(c) that prohibits an
agency from dividing a proposed section 8(a) requirement into
several separate action in order to avoid the $3 million
threshold for competing such contracts. (Champion
Business Services, Inc., B-283927, January 24, 2000)
We have held that an agency need
not consider subcontractor experience where the solicitation
contemplates award of a service contract to a section 8(a) firm,
and includes the provision at Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) sect. 52.219-14, which imposes a limitation on
subcontracting to an amount less than 50 percent of the cost of
contract performance. USATREX Int?l, Inc. supra at 4. In such
cases, the agency properly may determine that only the offeror?s
own capabilities are relevant for purposes of discriminating
among the proposals. Since the RFP here provided for award of a
service contract and contained the cited FAR provision, we think
it properly could limit its evaluation to the prime contractor?s
capabilities. (North
State Resources, Inc., B-282140, June 7, 1999) |
