Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Disposition: Protest dismissed.
GAO will generally not review agency’s decision to cancel a solicitation to perform the work in-house because decision whether to perform work in-house is generally a matter of executive branch policy.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Aleut contends that the Air Force’s decision to cancel the solicitation is not reasonable because the work does not warrant priority consideration for in-sourcing under 10 U.S.C.A. sect. 2463 because transportation services do not fall within the enumerated functions identified for special consideration in the statute. GAO will not review the Air Force’s actions. Although GAO reviews agency decisions to cancel solicitations to determine whether those decisions are reasonably based, it generally does not review them when the work in question is to be performed in-house because such decisions are generally a matter of executive branch policy. However, GAO has recognized limited exceptions where a solicitation requires a cost comparison in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, where a statute or regulation requires a cost comparison before retaining the work in-house, or where the protester argues that the agency’s rationale for canceling the solicitation is a pretext. None of these exceptions apply.
Here, the statute in question–10 U.S.C.A. sect. 2463–does not require, nor does Aleut allege it requires, a cost comparison between the agency and outside contractors. Aleut’s allegation that the work required by the solicitation should not be given priority consideration under 10 U.S.C.A sect. 2463 fails to state a valid basis of protest. Paragraph (b) of the statute establishes categories of functions to be given special consideration for in-sourcing, but it does not state that only those categories of functions may be in-sourced. Thus, the Air Force is not precluded by 10 U.S.C.A. sect. 2463(b) from performing the work in-house. The protest is dismissed.