THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY ON JANUARY 14, 1994 ____________________________________________________ SUSPENSION OF PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY GRANTED IN PART: January 12, 1994 ____________________________________________________ GSBCA 12713-P PRC, INC., Protester, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent, and EER SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Intervenor. L. James D'Agostino, Timothy B. Harris, William B. Fisher, Michael E. Snyder, Kathleen C. Barger, and Michael P. Kelley of Wickwire Gavin, P.C., Vienna, VA; and Ronald L. Shingler and Gary B. Carson of PRC, Inc., McLean, VA, counsel for Protester. Pamela J. Reiner and Marie N. Adamson, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. David R. Hazelton and Minh N. Vu of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. ORDER On December 27, 1993, PRC, Inc. (PRC) filed this protest challenging the award of a contract to intervenor, EER Systems Corporation (EER). In its complaint, PRC requests that the Board suspend respondent's procurement authority. Respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), objects to PRC's request. On January 6, 1994, we convened a hearing in order to permit the parties to present evidence and argument concerning their positions. None of the parties wished to file post-hearing briefs. As explained below, a partial suspension of GSA's procurement authority is appropriate. The contract at issue here requires EER to provide federal information processing support services for the Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS). The RCAS, when fully operational, will provide United States Army commanders, staffs, and functional managers with the information necessary to plan, prepare, and execute mobilization of United States Army Reserve and National Guard troops in times of national emergency. The RCAS will automate information concerning the readiness and availability of troops and equipment and will make that information available instantly to the Army's decisionmakers. Our decision in Computer Sciences Corp., GSBCA 11497-P, 92-1 BCA 24,524, 1991 BPD 254, describes the RCAS and its importance to national defense. The RCAS contract, worth approximately $1.6 billion, is being performed by Boeing Computer Services (Boeing). Congress has urged the Army to support a more rapid deployment of the RCAS. Congress has also directed that those responsible for implementing the RCAS give priority to the elements of the RCAS which are critical to support mobilization. These critical elements consist of a series of software deliverables which are denominated as Block X, Block 1.0, and Block 2. Block X consists of a software package which has been delivered to approximately 500 locations and which is being delivered to approximately 90 additional locations per month. There is a considerable amount of technical support required in order to put this software in place. Block 1.0 software is to be delivered by Boeing at the end of this month. Testing of Block 1.0 software will begin as soon as it is delivered and technical support is necessary in order to conduct the required tests.[foot #] 1 The design of the Block 2 software is now beginning, the Government is starting to receive deliverables from Boeing, and technical support is necessary in order to review the deliverables and the design and to ensure that they meet the Government's needs. As soon as each critical block is delivered to the field, it will dramatically improve the Government's ability to mobilize its reserve components. It is essential that the Government have both specialized technical support and general program management support in order to oversee Boeing's activities. Presently, EER is providing the Government with the necessary technical support and PRC is providing the program management support. EER's services are being provided pursuant to the terms of a delivery order which ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 There is an additional software deliverable, Block 1.1, which is not critical to support mobilization. Although not itself critical, Block 1.1 software must be ready to be integrated with Block 1.0 software when the testing of Block 1.0 software has been completed. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- expires on January 15, 1994. EER's contract expired approximately one year ago. PRC's services are being provided pursuant to the terms of a delivery order and a contract which is still in effect and can be extended. The newly-awarded contract at issue in this protest includes work performed under both the contract previously awarded to EER and the contract previously awarded to PRC. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(3) (1988), we must suspend GSA's procurement authority unless "urgent and compelling circumstances which significantly affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the board." If we suspend GSA's procurement authority, the Government will have to do without the technical and program management support needed to supervise Boeing's activities and this will leave the Government with two choices. First, the Government could tell Boeing to stop work on the critical elements of the RCAS, which would result in a delay in implementation of the RCAS which will directly affect the Government's ability to support and mobilize its reserve troops. Alternatively, the Government could permit Boeing to continue to perform the critical elements of the RCAS contract without adequate oversight during the period of the suspension. If, as is likely, there were any errors or flaws in Boeing's work during the period when no technical review was made available by the Government, these errors would not be detected and corrected until after the suspension is lifted. The result would be delays in testing and implementation of the RCAS. A suspension of GSA's authority to conduct this procurement would cause a direct, immediate, and unavoidable delay in the implementation of the RCAS, and so would significantly affect the interests of the United States. Thus, a suspension of GSA's procurement authority is not warranted unless, as PRC urges, GSA can obtain the services that it needs by an alternative means. PRC argues that no urgent and compelling circumstances exist because there is an alternative to having EER perform the newly- awarded contract. Specifically, PRC states that it is ready, willing, and able to perform all of the services required by the newly-awarded contract. PRC's argument is only partially persuasive, given the evidence adduced at the hearing. GSA does not contest PRC's claim that PRC provides an alternative means by which GSA can obtain part of the services that GSA intends to obtain pursuant to the newly-awarded contract. GSA agrees that PRC could continue to provide the same services that it is presently providing pursuant to its current contract and delivery order. For this reason, a partial suspension of GSA's procurement authority is appropriate, so as to permit PRC to continue to provide the same services that it is now providing in support of the RCAS. GSA accedes to this partial suspension. GSA vigorously contests PRC's claim that PRC provides an alternative means by which GSA can obtain all of the services that GSA intends to obtain pursuant to the newly-awarded contract. GSA does not agree that PRC is in a position to provide, during the period of any suspension, the technical services that EER is presently providing pursuant to its current delivery order. The services that EER is providing are very specialized and complex and PRC has not been performing the same technical services that EER has been performing. If PRC were to begin providing the technical services that EER has been providing, PRC's employees would have to spend a considerable amount of time acquainting themselves with those services and there would be a delay in the effective delivery of these services which is likely to persist as long as the period of a suspension. We agree with GSA that, in these circumstances, performance by PRC is not an alternative to performance by EER pursuant to the newly-awarded contract. In summary, a partial suspension of GSA's procurement authority is appropriate. This permits EER to continue to provide the services that it is presently providing pursuant to its existing delivery order and permits PRC to continue to provide the services that it is presently providing pursuant to its existing contract and delivery order. Consistent with the direction provided by 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(3), a partial suspension preserves the status quo and creates the least disruption possible. GSA will continue to procure the services that it needs and the respective positions of the protester and the intervenor will remain unchanged while the protest is pending. Decision For the above reasons, we SUSPEND GSA'S PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY, IN PART, as follows: 1. The performance of CLIN 1 is suspended. 2. The performance of CLIN 2 is suspended. 3. The performance of CLINs 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 is suspended. 4. The performance of CLINs 3.2 and 3.7 is not suspended. 5. The performance of CLIN 4 is suspended. 6. The performance of CLINs 5, 6 and 7 is not suspended, if performance of these items is necessary in order to perform CLINS 3.2 and 3.7. 7. EER is entitled to provide, pursuant to CLINs 3.2, 3.7, 5, 6 and 7, the same services that it is performing pursuant to the delivery order that expires January 15, 1994. 8. The duration of the delivery orders issued to permit EER to provide services pursuant to CLINs 3.2, 3.7, 5, 6 and 7 should be limited so that EER will be permitted to perform during the period of this protest and for a reasonable time following the issuance of the decision upon the merits, should a transition period be necessary. ________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge