|
A-76,
Handbook: Part I, Ch. 3, K-1 - Appeals of Cost Comparison |
|
Comptroller
General - Key Excerpts |
With respect to challenges to cost comparisons under
Circular A-76 procedures, we have adopted a policy, for
the sake of comity and efficiency, of requiring protesters
to exhaust the available administrative appeal process.
Thus, we have held that where, as here, there is a
relatively speedy appeal process for the review of an
agency's cost comparison decision, we will not consider
objections to the cost comparison that were not appealed
to the agency. See Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc. ,
B-288636, B-288636.2, Nov. 23, 2001, 2001 CPD 191 at 18;
Professional Servs. Unified, Inc. , B257360.2, July 21,
1994, 94-2 CPD 39 at 3. Nevertheless, there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement that an offeror
exhaust available agencylevel remedies before protesting
to our Office, and we retain the discretion to waive the
policy requiring the exhaustion of the Circular A-76
appeal process where good cause is shown. Johnson Controls
World Servs., Inc. , supra . Here, there is no dispute
that various spreadsheets were provided to Frontier during
the public review period after the Army's announcement of
the tentative cost comparison decision, but prior to
Frontier's filing of its administrative appeal. These
spreadsheets clearly showed that the MEO staffed the help
desk with GS-05 personnel, specifically GS-05 335/Computer
Operator (Help Desk)." See , e.g. , Spreadsheets 050503,
041103. In addition, the MEO's technical performance plan
and its management plan, as well as the government's
in-house cost estimate, showed that the central operations
center would be staffed with GS-05 (2) Computer Asst.
(Help Desk) Total = 2." AR, Vol. III, Tab 5, MEO
Documentation, at962, 965, 1017-18, 1190. Thus, it is
clear from this record that Frontier had sufficient
information at the time it filed its administrative appeal
to have argued that the GS-05 personnel assigned by the
MEO to staff the help desk did not have the requisite
qualifications, and there is nothing in the record that
would warrant waiving our policy requiring the exhaustion
of the administrative appeal process. (Frontier
Technology, Inc., B-294061, August 12, 2004) (pdf)
We disagree with BAE that the AAB was barred by the RSH from reviewing these
appeals issues and making its own judgments as to the amount of staffing required
for the in-house offer to satisfy the minimum PWS requirements. The very purpose
of the appeal process is to provide affected parties with an opportunity for a higher-level
administrative review of the agency’s cost comparison decision prior to that
decision becoming final. See, e.g., 32 C.F.R. § 169a.18(a) (DOD Administrative
Appeal Procedures); see also Diebold v. United States, 947 F.2d 787, 806 (6
th Cir. 1991) (A-76 administrative appeals process provides for final agency action). Given
this purpose, we do not think that the restriction in the RSH cited by BAE was
intended to apply to the decisions made by the SSA that were the subject of the
appeals here. In this context, the SSA is not making management decisions but is
part of the evaluation process, and therefore we see no basis why the SSA’s
decisions, like any other evaluation determination, cannot be reviewed by the
AAB. (BAE
Systems, B-287189, B-287189.2, May 14, 2001) |
|
|
Comptroller
General - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
|
Frontier Technology, Inc., B-294061,
August 12, 2004 (pdf) |
Del-Jen,
Inc., B-287273.2, January 23, 2002 (Pdf
Version) |
|
Pacific Support Group, LLC, B-290467, August 8, 2002 (pdf) |
BAE
Systems, B-287189, B-287189.2, May 14, 2001 (pdf) |
|
Symvionics, Inc., B-281199.2, March 4, 1999 (print
in pdf) |
Trajen,
Inc., B-284310; B-284310.2, March 28, 2000 (print
in pdf) |
|
|
