Matter of: Americable, International, Vandenberg, Inc File: B-257953 Date: August 23, 1994
Highlights
DIGEST General Accounting Office will not consider under its bid protest jurisdiction allegation that an agency will not comply with the cable franchise renewal provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. It asserts that the solicitation to be issued will contemplate evaluating its franchise renewal proposal on a competitive basis. Americable states that it has filed its protest to ensure that the proper procedures for renewal of its franchise are followed. It issued the CBD notice in order to determine whether there are any cable operators interested in obtaining a franchise to solicit customers on Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Air Force points out that our Office will not consider disputes over franchise renewals.
Matter of: Americable, International, Vandenberg, Inc File: B-257953 Date: August 23, 1994
DIGEST
Attorneys
DECISION
We dismiss the protest.
The Air Force reports that it has not yet issued a solicitation. Rather, the agency simply issued a Commerce Business Daily (CBD) synopsis to inform providers of cable services that they should request an information packet from the agency. According to the Air Force, it issued the CBD notice in order to determine whether there are any cable operators interested in obtaining a franchise to solicit customers on Vandenberg Air Force Base, in addition to Americable. Concerning the renewal of Americable's franchise, the Air Force points out that our Office will not consider disputes over franchise renewals. Cable Antenna Sys., 65 Comp.Gen. 313 (1986), 86-1 CPD Para. 168, recon. denied Cable Antenna Sys.--Recon., B-220752.2, Mar. 28, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 298. The agency contends that the protest should be dismissed since, as explained in Cable Antenna Sys., Americable's concern that the Air Force intends to interfere with its franchise renewal rights by issuing a solicitation are not appropriate for our review. We agree.
As we stated in Cable Antenna Sys., the Cable Act expressly provides that a cable operator adversely affected by a failure of a franchising authority to act in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act may file an appeal in a United States district court or any state court of general jurisdiction over the parties. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 555 (1988). We noted that the Act sets forth circumstances under which a court may grant relief, and we concluded that the Act did not contemplate review by our Office of the cable television franchise renewal process. Thus, we declined to consider the alleged violation of the renewal process.
Here, despite the Air Force's assurances that it has no intention of basing Americable's franchise renewal on a competitive process and that it intends to comply with the cable law, the protester believes that the issuance of the solicitation indicates that the agency will undertake an improper franchise renewal process. Since this is a complaint about an anticipated improper franchise renewal process, it is beyond the scope of our protest jurisdiction.[1] Cable Antenna Sys., supra.
The protest is dismissed.
1. The protester also asserts that the agency's action infringed on its constitutional right "to provide cable service to end-users without government interference." This issue is a matter for the courts, not our Office, to decide. See DePaul Hospital and The Catholic Health Assoc. of the United States, B-227160, Aug. 18, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 173.