B-207259, MAY 17, 1982
Highlights
DIGEST: PROTEST AGAINST AN AGENCY'S DECISION TO PERFORM WORK IN-HOUSE RATHER THAN TO CONTRACT OUT FOR IT IS UNTIMELY WHERE NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER BASIS OF PROTEST WAS KNOWN. 1981 THE PROTESTER WAS INFORMED OF THE AIR FORCE'S DECISION TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED SERVICES IN-HOUSE. IT IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES WHICH REQUIRE THAT PROTESTS SUCH AS THIS BE FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS OF PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. 4 C.F.R. WE ONLY REVIEW THESE CASES WHEN A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONTRACTING AND IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN PERFORMING THE WORK IN-HOUSE AND CONTRACTING IS FAULTY OR MISLEADING.
B-207259, MAY 17, 1982
DIGEST: PROTEST AGAINST AN AGENCY'S DECISION TO PERFORM WORK IN-HOUSE RATHER THAN TO CONTRACT OUT FOR IT IS UNTIMELY WHERE NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER BASIS OF PROTEST WAS KNOWN.
CHILDREY, CONTRACT SERVICES INCORPORATED:
CHILDREY, CONTRACT SERVICES INCORPORATED PROTESTS THE DETERMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE TO PERFORM PEST CONTROL SERVICES AT TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE IN-HOUSE RATHER THAN CONTRACTING OUT FOR THEM. CHILDREY HAD PERFORMED THESE SERVICES IN THE PAST UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION'S 8(A) PROGRAM.
THE RECORD INDICATES THAT BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1981 THE PROTESTER WAS INFORMED OF THE AIR FORCE'S DECISION TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED SERVICES IN-HOUSE. CHILDREY DID NOT FILE ITS PROTEST HERE UNTIL APRIL 26, 1982, NEARLY FIVE MONTHS LATER. IT IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES WHICH REQUIRE THAT PROTESTS SUCH AS THIS BE FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS OF PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1981).
IN ANY EVENT, WE POINT OUT THAT GENERALLY WE REGARD A DISPUTE OVER AN AGENCY DECISION TO PERFORM WORK IN-HOUSE RATHER THAN TO CONTRACT OUT FOR IT AS ONE INVOLVING A POLICY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT BY OUR OFFICE. CAREER CONSULTANTS, INC., B-200506.2, MAY 27, 1981, 81-1 CPD 414. WE ONLY REVIEW THESE CASES WHEN A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONTRACTING AND IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN PERFORMING THE WORK IN-HOUSE AND CONTRACTING IS FAULTY OR MISLEADING. CROWN LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS, INC., B-194505, JULY 18, 1979, 79-2 CPD 38. THIS LIMITED EXCEPTION TO OUR REVIEW OF THESE CASES IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE NO SOLICITATION HAS BEEN ISSUED.
THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.