GAO: Energy improperly awarded sole-source contract extension

The Energy Department provided insufficient information in a contract extension notice, discouraging competition and ultimately resulting in an inappropriate sole-source award, the Government Accountability Office has decided.

The decision, announced Tuesday, concluded that an agency synopsis of the services required for a contract extension did not adequately describe the office's needs, thus depriving prospective bidders of the opportunity to demonstrate capability to do the work.

The award of the contract extension to the existing contract holder on a sole-source basis was thus improper, GAO found.

The decision sustained protests by two small businesses -- Germantown, Md.-based M.D. Thompson Consulting and Arvada, Colo.-based PMTech -- related to an Energy Department Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance contract with El Segundo, Calif.-based Computer Sciences Corp.

Protests filed by the two companies regarded the 9-month "bridge" extension of a contract with CSC, while the Energy Department completed a new procurement of services, including classification/declassification guidance for particular nuclear and radiological technologies, as well as less technical work with classified materials, such as general and mailroom support, according to documentation provided to GAO by Energy.

Normally, a pre-solicitation notice for this type of contract award should summarize the work to be done, allowing interested parties to submit capability statements that could lead to a competitive bidding process, GAO said.

In this case, GAO concluded that the synopsis was inadequate, consisting of only the following statement: "CSC has the requisite number of key and non-key personnel possessing the required security clearances. No other firm has the requisite knowledge, experience and capability to assume the critical, highly specialized technical and administrative support without interruption."

The pre-solicitation notice also stated that it was published "for informational purposes only and [was] not a request for proposals or other information," leading GAO to conclude that it "discouraged, and may have been intended to discourage, responses." A GAO official explained that such a notice would normally include language indicating the contracting official's intent to consider capability statements submitted in response.

In sustaining the protest, GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa recommended that the Energy Department reimburse the companies for protest-related costs and issue, "as promptly as practicable," a revised synopsis that adequately communicates the contract requirements. The agency should then evaluate any resulting submissions for a possible competitive bidding process, he said.