## Facts

- The Army’s 5th Special Forces Group had an ongoing requirement for language-training services and met it through Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders.
- Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. previously performed the services under a 1-year delivery order that was set to expire in March 2002.
- The Army issued an RFQ for the requirement; REEP, Inc. protested, alleging the solicitation was unduly restrictive and raising a conflict-of-interest concern regarding Worldwide.
- The Army represented it would cancel and revise the RFQ and evaluate the conflict-of-interest allegation; GAO dismissed the initial protest based on this corrective action.
- While corrective action was pending, the Army issued two FSS delivery orders to Worldwide under a schedule on which Worldwide was the only vendor.
- REEP and other vendors offered functionally identical language-training services under a different FSS schedule at lower prices.
- The Army knew that identical, lower-priced services were available under that other schedule but did not seek quotations or otherwise review those prices before issuing the orders to Worldwide.

## Issues

1. Whether the Army violated applicable FSS ordering requirements by issuing delivery orders to the only vendor on one schedule without reviewing reasonably available pricing from other known FSS vendors offering identical services under another schedule at lower prices.
2. Whether the Army’s failure to consider known, lower-priced schedule alternatives rendered the orders unreasonable and inconsistent with FSS best-value obligations.

## Decision

- GAO sustained the protest.
- GAO found the Army could not properly issue the delivery orders to Worldwide without reviewing reasonably available pricing information from the other schedule where identical services were offered at lower prices.
- GAO concluded the Army’s approach effectively resulted in a de facto sole-source selection within the FSS despite known, lower-priced alternatives.
- GAO found REEP was prejudiced because it could have competed for, and potentially received, the orders based on lower pricing for identical services.

## Legal Principles

- In placing FSS delivery orders, an agency must review information that is reasonably available, including known schedule pricing for identical services from other vendors.
- Streamlined FSS ordering procedures do not eliminate the requirement that agencies act reasonably and consider available information relevant to best value.
- An agency may not rely solely on a schedule that contains only one vendor when it knows identical services are available at lower prices under another schedule and fails to review those prices.

## Conclusion

GAO held that the Army’s issuance of FSS delivery orders to the only vendor on one schedule was improper where the Army knew identical services were available at lower prices under another schedule and failed to review that reasonably available pricing information before ordering.


REEP, Inc., B-290665 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 17, 2002)