In 15 of the 25 MAA cities, GSA awarded  these contracts to two or more telecommunications providers; such  contracts are referred to as multiple-award contracts. Under multiple-award contracts, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  requires that contractors be afforded “a fair opportunity to be considered”  in the subsequent award of task orders issued to meet specific agency  needs under these contracts. Because GSA headquarters has  not developed or implemented a uniform method to be followed by its  regional offices in conducting the fair consideration process, approaches  vary among cities and, in some cases, within cities. Further, because GSA did not oversee  the application of this process, in some instances regional offices violated  the FAR by incorrectly using agency preference as a basis, in part or as a  whole, for selecting a higher priced contractor for an MAA task order. Although the FAR gives contracting officers broad latitude in  administering the fair consideration process, GSA recognizes that the MAA  program and its contracts should be consistently managed and  administered. The effect of using different time frames in price comparisons is illustrated  in table 3. As a result, variations occur in the  application of the fair consideration process, contrary to GSA’s stated  interest in ensuring the consistency of the MAA program. Numerous Fair Consideration Decisions Were Not Adequately Documented

About one-fifth of GSA’s fair consideration decisions were not adequately  documented. According to the FAR, documentation of all contractual  actions must be maintained in a manner sufficient to provide a basis for  decisions reached in the acquisition process, and to provide information  for subsequent reviews of those decisions. Out of 483 fair consideration  decisions from regional GSA offices in the 11 cities that we assessed, the  documentation furnished for 91 (19 percent) did not adequately support  the task order award that was made. The price analysis did not support the decision reached. Contract documentation for these 20 decisions included a  statement that both price and technical factors were considered. These problems were  permitted to occur because GSA did not establish uniform guidelines to  ensure that all regional offices were documenting fair consideration  decisions in a manner consistent with the FAR. As a result, in 19 percent of  the cases we reviewed, GSA, customer agencies, MAA contractors, and the  Congress do not have assurance that the procedure followed by GSA to  award MAA task orders was properly applied. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In our review of the Metropolitan Area Acquisition (MAA) contracts  managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), our objectives  were to determine (1) whether GSA’s fair consideration process varies  within or among cities, and if so, whether or not variations affect the  process results; (2) whether GSA’s documentation properly and  appropriately supports its fair consideration decisions; and (3) whether  the use of Requests for Quotations in the fair consideration processes  followed by GSA is cost-effective.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Metropolitan Area Acquisition (MAA) program, managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), provides local telecommunications services to government agencies in selected metropolitan areas. Of the 25 cities in which MAA contracts were awarded as of January 2003, 15 were awarded to two or more providers. Such multiple-award contracts are a means of promoting competition. To ensure equity in the award of task orders under these contracts, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that the government provide contractors a fair opportunity to be considered. GAO was asked to review, among other things, whether GSA's implementation of the fair consideration process is consistent and the effect of any inconsistency, as well as the adequacy of GSA's documentation to support the decisions reached.

What GAO Found

GSA field offices take different approaches to awarding task orders under multiple-award MAA contracts, leading to variations both among cities and within cities. Although the FAR gives contracting officers broad latitude in ensuring that this process offers contractors a fair opportunity to be considered, GSA recognizes that consistency is important within the nationwide MAA program. However, GSA headquarters has not developed or implemented a uniform fair consideration process. As a result, GAO found variations in the processes used: principally, in the time frames used in contractor price comparisons. Such inconsistencies frequently influenced the choice of contractor. Further, because oversight was not provided, in six cases agency preference was used as a criterion for selecting a contractor, which is a violation of the FAR. Because GSA did not consistently follow a common process that ensured compliance with the FAR, it cannot ensure the fairness of its decisions. Further, the documentation for about one-fifth of GSA's fair consideration decisions was not adequate for determining how these decisions were reached. According to the FAR, sufficient documentation of all contractual actions must be maintained to provide (1) a basis for decisions reached and (2) information for subsequent reviews. Out of 483 fair consideration decisions from regional GSA offices in the 11 cities that GAO assessed, the documentation furnished for 91 (19 percent) was not adequate. Weaknesses observed include lack of stated rationale for decisions reached, price comparisons that did not support the choice of contractor selected by GSA, and lack of support for technical factors used in making the decisions. These weaknesses occurred because GSA did not establish and implement uniform guidelines for documenting its MAA fair consideration decisions. As a result, MAA stakeholders (GSA, agencies, and MAA contractors) do not have assurance that the fair consideration process was properly administered.