Public-Private Competitions

The Air Force lacked a well-supported rationale for combining, under a single contract, the diverse workloads at the closing Sacramento air logistics center. This requirement may unduly restrict competition by eliminating potential bidders who are capable of performing some, but not all, of the individual workloads. GAO reviewed an Air Force report and found that it did not provide adequate information to support the determination that the workloads could not as logically and economically be performed without combination by potentially qualified sources. Subsequently, the Air Force provided additional supporting rationale for the workload combination. GAO reviewed the Air Force's rationale and found that it was not well supported. Although the Air Force's rationale is not at this point sufficient to justify the workload combination, the rationale for combination contains some elements, such as readiness concerns and potential competition enhancements, that, if supported, could establish the reasonableness of the combination under the acquisition laws.

GAO noted that: (1) based on its review of the Sacramento solicitation and concerns raised informally by potential offerors, GAO found that the Air Force has not, as of April 22, provided a sufficient basis to show that soliciting the workloads on a combined basis is necessary to satisfy its needs; (2) otherwise, GAO found that the solicitation is in compliance with applicable laws, including provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2469a; (3) because the Air Force issued a solicitation combining multiple workloads, it was required to issue a determination that the workloads could not as logically and economically be performed without combination by potentially qualified sources, accompanied by a supporting report; (4) GAO reviewed this report and found that it did not provide adequate information to support the determination; (5) subsequently, the Air Force provided additional information supporting the rationale for the workload combination; (6) GAO reviewed the Air Force's rationale and found that it was not well supported; (7) normally, GAO reviews the solicitation of combined requirements in the context of a bid protest; in that context, the agency has an opportunity to justify the combination by showing it is reasonably related to its needs or that it may actually enhance competition; (8) the Air Force's supporting rationale, which was prepared in a different context, is not at this point sufficient to justify the workload combination; (9) GAO found nothing in the basic authority governing the Sacramento competition that limits the Air Force to a selection based on low evaluated cost; (10) GAO found that the solicitation establishes a reasonable method for measuring estimated overhead savings consistent with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2469a; (11) this provision is sufficiently general to permit the Air Force broad discreation to decide exactly how to measure estimated overhead savings as those savings apply to a successful offeror's other government work; (12) considering that the performance period for the Sacramento workloads could last for as long as eight years, GAO believes it is reasonable for the Air Force to require strong support for projected future savings and to consider that such projections may well be less accurate for the later portion of the performance period; (13) GAO found nothing in the solicitation that designates a particular location, such as the closing Sacramento depot, at which performance is required or preferred; and (14) nor do any of the solicitation evaluation criteria evidence a bias toward any particular performance location.