Crown Support Services, Inc., B-287070, January 31, 2001

B-287070 Jan 31, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A-76 is untimely where filed with the General Accounting Office more than 10 days after contracting agency denied protester's appeal. While the protest was filed within 10 days of cancellation of the underlying solicitation. Cancellation was merely implementation of the denial of the appeal. Crown timely filed an administrative appeal protesting that the cost comparison was flawed because. He explicitly determined that group counseling was permitted and was acceptable under the PWS. Concluded that correction of the other errors did not result in a cost adjustment sufficient to warrant reversal of the determination that it was more economical to perform the services in-house. It is uncontroverted that Crown was provided with a copy of this adverse decision on the same date. View Decision Matter of: Crown Support Services, Inc. File: B-287070 Date: January 31, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Crown Support Services Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's decision, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76, that it would be more economical to perform the Navy Northwest Region Personal Property Services function in-house rather than to contract for these services with Crown under solicitation No. N00406-00-R-5012. We dismiss the protest as untimely filed. On September 29, 2000, Crown received notice that the Navy's cost comparison had resulted in a determination that in-house performance under the government's most efficient organization (MEO) would be less costly than contracting with Crown, whose proposal the agency had previously determined represented the best value under a solicitation issued to obtain private-sector competition to select a proposal for cost comparison with the government's MEO. Crown timely filed an administrative appeal protesting that the cost comparison was flawed because, among other things, the MEO improperly utilized group counseling rather than individual counseling for certain services required under the applicable performance work statement (PWS). Although the administrative appeal authority found certain other errors in the agency's cost comparison, he explicitly determined that group counseling was permitted and was acceptable under the PWS, and concluded that correction of the other errors did not result in a cost adjustment sufficient to warrant reversal of the determination that it was more economical to perform the services in-house. As a result, by decision dated December 21, 2000, the administrative appeal authority denied Crown's appeal. It is uncontroverted that Crown was provided with a copy of this adverse decision on the same date. Thereafter, Crown's president states that, after encountering difficulty in contacting agency representatives, he eventually engaged in a telephone conversation with the Navy's contracting officer. During this conversation, Crown's president allegedly stated that his company was going to file a protest with the General Accounting Office if the solicitation was canceled, and allegedly was misled by the contracting officer because she did not advise Crown of the effect of the appeal authority decision for purposes of timely filing that protest. After the Navy issued an amendment canceling the solicitation, Crown filed this protest with our Office on January 10, 2001. In implementing the requirements for an A-76 cost comparison using a negotiated solicitation, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 7.306(b)(2) provides that where a cost comparison with a selectee's proposal results in a determination in favor of government performance, there is a public review period during which interested parties have the right to seek administrative review of the cost comparison determination through an appeals procedure as set forth in FAR Sec. 7.307. After the public review period and upon notice to the contracting officer if there is an adverse resolution of any appeal, FAR Sec. 7.306(b)(3) requires that the contracting officer formally implement a decision to perform the work in-house by canceling the solicitation. An A-76 cost comparison decision is considered final, however, as soon as the administrative appeal procedures have been exhausted. See Trans-Regional Mfg., Inc., B-245399, Nov. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 492 at 3. Our Office will consider a protest alleging A-76 cost comparison deficiencies after the protester has exhausted the agency's administrative appeal process, and only with respect to objections that have been raised in the appeal to the agency. Id. In determining the timeliness of a post-appeal protest, we apply the timeliness rule applicable to protests filed with our Office after adverse agency action on an agency-level protest.