TITLE:	Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc.
BNUMBER:	   B-290181
DATE:		    June 17, 2002
**********************************************************************
Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc. , B-290181, July 5, 2002

Decision


Matter of:   Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc.

File:            B-290181

Date:              July 5, 2002

Deborah Y. Ho, Esq., David E. Frulla, Esq., and Stanley M. Brand, Esq.,
Brand & Frulla, for the protester.
Gretchen L. Gaston, Esq., and William P. Horn, Esq., Birch, Horton, Bittner
and Cherot, for Fort Sumter Tours, Inc., an intervenor.
Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Pamela L. Barkin, Esq., Alton E. Woods, Esq.,
and Hugo Teufel, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest concerning the award of a concession contract is for
consideration under General Accounting Office's bid protest function where
the concession contract includes the delivery of property or services to the
government.

2.  Decision by the National Park Service to cancel a concession contract
prospectus in order to review agency requirements is unobjectionable where
the action was reasonable and consistent with applicable regulations.

DECISION

Starfleet Marine Transportation, Inc. protests the decision by the
Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), to cancel the
prospectus seeking proposals for the award of a concession contract for the
operation of a ferryboat transportation service for Fort Sumter National
Monument, South Carolina, and to extend the contract of the incumbent, Fort
Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST).  Starfleet principally alleges that the decision
by the NPS to cancel the prospectus lacked a reasonable basis, and was the
result of improper congressional interference.

We deny the protest.

Fort Sumter, the site at which the first shots of the American Civil War
were fired, is an island fort located at the entrance of Charleston Harbor,
South Carolina.  An important part of our nation's history, Fort Sumter
became part of the National Park Service in 1948.  Prospectus, Fort Sumter
National Monument, at 2.[1]  Today, with more than 200,000 annual visitors,
the Fort Sumter National Monument (Monument) consists of four
components--Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, The Historic Coast Guard Station on
nearby Sullivan's Island, and a new Visitor Education Center (Visitor
Center) with boat dock facility at Liberty Square, located in downtown
Charleston.[2]

The NPS has utilized concession contractors to provide Monument visitors
with ferryboat transportation to and from Fort Sumter, which is only
accessible by boat.  For the past 40 years FST has operated the ferryboat
service at the Monument.  Protest at 2.  The NPS entered into the present
contract with FST on June 13, 1986 for a period of 15 years.  Although
originally to expire on December 31, 2000, the contract was extended until
December 31, 2002.[3]  Under this contract FST has provided ferryboat
service to Fort Sumter from two locations that are not part of the
Monument--from the City Marina in Charleston, and from the Patriots Point
Naval and Maritime Museum (Patriots Point), located across the harbor from
Charleston in the town of Mount Pleasant.[4]

On December 13, 2001 the NPS issued a prospectus seeking competitive
proposals for the award of a 10-year concession contract to provide
ferryboat service for the visiting public within the Monument.  Starfleet
exhs. at 3, Commerce Business Daily: Notice of Availability of Prospectus.
The prospectus was issued pursuant to the National Park Service Concessions
Management Improvement Act of 1998.  Pub. L. No. 105-391, ï¿½ 401 et seq., 112
Stat. 3497, 3503-18 (1998), codified at 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 5951 et seq. (Supp. IV
1998) (the 1998 Act).  The 1998 Act, which repealed and replaced the
National Park Service Concession Policies Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 20 et
seq.) (the 1965 Act), had as one of its primary objectives the enhancement
of competition in NPS concession contracting.  See 65 Fed. Reg. 20630 (Apr.
17, 2000).  Specifically, the 1998 Act established a competitive selection
process for the award of concession contracts and generally eliminated the
preferential right of renewal that existed for the incumbent concessioner
under the 1965 Act.  16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 5952.

Both the Senate and House reports on the 1998 Act--but not the statute
itself--expressed the view that concession "contracts do not constitute
contracts for the procurement of good and services for the benefit of the
government or otherwise."  S. Rep. No. 105-202, at 39 (1998); H.R. Rep. No.
105-767, at 43 (1998).  Similarly, the agency regulations developed to
implement the 1998 Act state that "[c]oncession contracts are not contracts
within the meaning of 41 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (the Contract Disputes Act) and
are not service or procurement contracts within the meaning of statutes,
regulations or policies that apply only to federal service contracts or
other types of federal procurement actions."  36 C.F.R. ï¿½ 51.3 (2000).

In general terms the prospectus here requires the concessioner to provide
ferryboat services to Monument visitors at rates and at minimum frequencies
as determined by the NPS.  Prospectus, Business Opportunity, at 2-3.  The
concessioner is required to operate a minimum of two boats with a seating
capacity of 300 for each boat, as well as to provide food and beverage
service on the tour boats.  Id. at 1.  The prospectus informed offerors that
the agency would provide the contractor with office, storage and ticket
space within the Visitor Center, as well as provide the contractor with use
of the Liberty Square pier and the docks at both Liberty Square and Fort
Sumter for Monument concession business.  Id. at 2; Contract, exh. C, Land
Assignment.  The minimum franchise fee that the concessioner would pay the
government for this business opportunity was 12 percent of the contractor's
annual gross receipts.[5]  The initial closing date for the submission of
proposals in response to the prospectus was March 13, 2002.  Id., Proposal
Package, at 1.

The prospectus also sets forth the services that the concessioner is
required to provide the agency as part of the overall contract.  The
concessioner must perform maintenance, repair, and janitorial services for
all facilities assigned.  Id., Business Opportunity at 2; Contract at ï¿½
9(a).  In particular, "the concessioner will maintain and keep clean all
provided office, storage and ticket space using his own cleaning supplies,
services and devices necessary to perform the janitorial functions.  This
work includes, but is not limited to, replacing light bulbs, repairing and
repainting walls, carpets, and ceilings."  Id., Contract, exh. E,
Maintenance Plan, at 4-5.  The concessioner is also required to clean the
Fort Sumter and Liberty Square docks (e.g., sweeping and removing litter
daily, and cleaning handrails as necessary) and the Liberty Square pier
(i.e., removing trash daily or more frequently if conditions warrant, and
cleaning of stains daily).  Id. at 5.

The prospectus also required that the concessioner provide the NPS with
additional services in furtherance of the agency's goal of providing
visitors with an interpretive program while en route to and from Fort
Sumter.  The concessioner is required to equip each ferry boat with a high
quality public address system, including voice microphones and extension
cords, and to make this available for the Park Ranger's use (the
concessioner also provides the NPS staff storage space on the vessel for
related literature, supplies and equipment).  Id., Contract, exh. A,
Operating Plan,
at 15-16.   The concessioner also furnishes the NPS staff with the
transportation necessary to conduct the interpretive program, both while
riding the ferryboat ("Rangers will rove the vessel to respond to visitor
questions and interpret the Fort Sumter story") and while at Fort Sumter
("Rangers will accompany visitors into Fort Sumter and remain with them
until departure time").  Id. at 16.

Unlike the current contract with FST, under which the concessioner provides
ferryboat service to Fort Sumter from two departure points, the prospectus
informed offerors that as part of the new contract there would now be one
departure point.[6]  Specifically, it established that ferryboat service
would be provided to all Monument visitors from only the boat dock
facilities at Liberty Square, adjacent to the new Visitor Center.[7]  Id.,
Abstract, at 2-3.  The NPS decision to establish a single ferryboat
departure point as part of the prospectus represented the implementation of
agency requirements that had been developed over an extended period of
time.  Agency Report, Tab DS, National Monument General Management Plan,
July 6, 1998; Tab DW, Monument Commercial Services Plan, Nov. 21, 2000.

Both before and after the issuance of the prospectus, there existed an
ongoing debate from many quarters regarding the NPS's decision to have
visitors embark to Fort Sumter from only the Liberty Square location.
Private citizens, the incumbent concessioner, other tour boat operators, the
Town of Mount Pleasant, the City of Charleston, the City of North
Charleston, and the Patriots Point Development Authority all took positions
in favor of or opposed to the planned change.  While expressing concerns
about what would be in the best interest of Fort Sumter's visitors, the
debate also concerned the economic impact that would result from the
agency's decision to consolidate ferryboat operations at Liberty Square.  As
discussed further below, various members of Congress also expressed their
disagreement with the NPS's plan to have a single departure point.

On March 8 the NPS extended the closing date for proposals until April 29,
in order to allow it additional time to examine the language of the
prospectus.  Agency Report, Tab A, Statement of NPS Deputy Director, at 1.
The NPS then announced on March 19 its decision to cancel the Fort Sumter
prospectus in order to review the issues regarding the number of departure
points, and, in the interim, to extend the current concession contract with
FST until December 31, 2003.  Agency Report, Tab F, NPS News Release,
Cancellation of Prospectus.

On March 28 Starfleet filed its protest with our Office.  Starfleet argues
that the agency's decision to extend the incumbent contract violated the
competition requirements of both the 1998 Act and the Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA),
41 U.S.C. ï¿½ 253(a)(1) (Supp. IV 1998).  Starfleet also argues that the NPS's
decision to cancel the prospectus lacked a reasonable basis and was the
result of improper congressional interference.

Jurisdiction

Initially, the agency and intervenor argue that the protest should be
dismissed as beyond the jurisdiction of our Office.  Agency Report at 1-4;
Intervenor's Comments at 4-5.  Both the agency and intervenor argue that NPS
concession contracts, conducted under the authority of the NPS Concessions
Management Improvement Act of 1998, are not procurements of goods or
services, but instead essentially involve the "sale" of a license or permit
to operate a business on federally-owned property.  FST also contends that
concession contracts are not procurement contracts because the government is
not paying anything of value to the concession contractor, the government is
not using appropriated funds, and the government is not acquiring goods or
services.  Intervenor's Comments at 5.

The authority of this office to decide bid protests is based on the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3551-56 (Supp.
IV 1998), and encompasses "a written objection by an interested party to a
solicitation or other request by a federal agency for offers for a contract
for the procurement of property or services."  Our jurisdiction does not
turn on whether appropriated funds are involved, West Coast Copy, Inc.;
Pacific Photocopy & Research Servs., B-254044, B-254044.2, Nov. 16, 1993,
93-2 CPD ï¿½ 283 at 5, or on whether the competition requirements of CICA
apply.  On the other hand, our jurisdiction generally does not extend to
challenges concerning the sale or lease of government property. [8]  Meyers
Cos., Inc., B-275963 et al., Apr. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD ï¿½ 148 at 4; Fifeco,
B-246925, Dec. 11, 1991, 91-2 CPD ï¿½ 534.

In discerning the nature of a contractual transaction, we have found that
the government need not commit to the payment of funds or incur any monetary
liability in order for there to be a procurement.  See Century 21--AAIM
Realty, Inc., B-246760, Apr. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD ï¿½ 345 at 3-4 (the absence of
a direct cost to the agency did not negate the fact that the Army acquired
relocation assistance services for its military personnel).  Likewise, the
government need not receive money in order for a contractual transaction to
constitute a sale.  See Government of Harford County, Maryland, B-283259,
B-283259.3, Oct. 28, 1999, 99-2 CPD ï¿½ 81 at 4 (proceeds from the sale of
government property were subsumed by other parts of the transaction).  We
also recognize that certain transactions, including concession contracts,
can involve both a sale and a procurement.  For example, in Government of
Harford County, Maryland, supra, the Army's privatization of utility systems
constituted such a mixed, or bundled, transaction and simultaneously
involved both the sale of government property and the procurement of
services.  Id.

Where a mixed transaction includes the delivery of goods or services to the
government, the contract is one for the procurement of property or services
within the meaning of CICA, and therefore is encompassed by our bid protest
jurisdiction.  Thus, for example, our Office has assumed jurisdiction over a
protest against the award of a contract involving both a sale of government
property and a procurement of services where the services to be received by
the government were one of the transaction's main objectives.  Id.
Similarly, where the award of a concession contract included the provision
of numerous services to the government, which the agency might otherwise
have had to purchase or perform itself, we found that the solicitation
involved a procurement of services.  See Alpine Camping Servs.,
B-238625.2, June 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD ï¿½ 580 at 4-5.  On the other hand, where
a concession or similar type contract does not include the delivery of goods
or services to the government, the contract is not one for the procurement
of property or services as envisioned by CICA.  Thus, for example, where the
agency's issuance of concession permits merely allowed entry by visitors
into a national park, and did not also include the provision of services to
the government, we did not exercise jurisdiction.  Crystal Cruises, Inc.,
B-238347, Feb. 1, 1990, 90-1 CPD ï¿½ 141, aff'd,
B-238347.2, June 14, 1990, 90-1 CPD ï¿½ 560.

In support of its argument that concession contracts are not procurement
contracts within the meaning of CICA, regardless of whether they involve
delivery of property or services to the government, the NPS cites to the
Senate and House reports that accompanied the 1998 Act.  The report language
to which the agency cites is not binding legal authority and any reliance
thereupon must be placed cautiously.[9]  The agency also cites to the NPS
regulations implementing the 1998 Act.  The NPS cannot by regulation limit
the authority of our Office to decide bid protests.  Moreover, it is our
Office, not the NPS, that has interpretative authority over the bid protest
provisions of CICA.

The NPS also cites Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. United States Dep't of the
Interior, 282 F.3d 818 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which upheld the agency regulations
excluding concession contract from coverage under the Contract Disputes
Act.[10]  In Amfac, the court concluded that as the "primary purpose of
concessions contracts is to permit visitors to enjoy national parks in a
manner consistent with preservation of the parks," the government's receipt
of "incidental benefits from the concessioner's performance" is insufficient
to give rise to a procurement contract.  Id. at 835.

In reaching its conclusion and holding, the court seems to have assumed that
all concession contracts result in no more than "incidental benefits" to the
government.  In its brief discussion of this issue, the court also appears
to have assumed that the primary purpose of a contractual transaction makes
it exclusively a sale or a procurement.  In our opinion, the court's view
that a concession contract cannot also involve the procurement of property
or services within the meaning of CICA does not take into account the
specific facts of each situation. [11]  We therefore decline to extend the
Court's holding in Amfac to bid protests brought pursuant to our
jurisdiction under CICA, where the challenged contract is a mixed
transaction, including both a procurement element and a concession element.

The interests to be protected here by our review of a contract involving the
government's procurement of property or services--the integrity of the
competitive bidding system, enabling the public to have confidence that the
government will award contracts fairly--are the same regardless of whether
the transaction is exclusively a procurement.  Where the government invites
private offerors to compete for a business opportunity, the performance of
which also involves the delivery of property or services to the government,
all elements necessary to invoke our jurisdiction are present.  See West
Coast Copy, Inc.; Pacific Photocopy & Research Servs., supra.

Here, as part of performing the 10-year contract, the concessioner is
required to provide maintenance, repair, and janitorial services for the
facilities assigned to it.  The contractor must clean the assigned office,
storage, and ticket space within the Visitor Center using its own cleaning
supplies and equipment, replace light bulbs, and repair and repaint walls,
carpets, and ceilings.  The concessioner is also responsible for providing
janitorial services for the assigned docks and pier, including sweeping,
removing litter daily, cleaning stains, removing trash, and cleaning
handrails.  The contractor also provides the agency with other benefits
which extend, directly and indirectly, in support of the NPS's  mission
requirements.  In order to accomplish the NPS goal of providing Monument
visitors with an interpretive program while en route to Fort Sumter, the
concessioner must equip each ferryboat with a public address system and make
it available to the Park Ranger, who is also provided with transportation by
the concessioner.  These contractor services permit the Park Ranger to
introduce the story of Fort Sumter prior to the visitors' arrival at Fort
Sumter, and provide visitors with an opportunity for dialogue with Park
Service staff, both on the ferryboat and at Fort Sumter.   While delivery of
services that are clearly de minimis would not rise to the level of a
procurement for purposes of our bid protest jurisdiction, the extent of the
services to be provided here is adequate to warrant our review.

Extension of the Incumbent Contract

Starfleet first protests that the NPS decision to extend the contract with
FST until December 31, 2003 was improper and violated the competition
requirements of both the 1998 Act and CICA.  Starfleet argues that by
repeatedly extending the FST concession contract the agency thwarts the very
purpose of these laws, namely, the enhancement of competition.  Protest at
1.

In its report on the protest the NPS asserts that it has not in fact
extended the current contract with FST beyond December 31, 2002,
notwithstanding the agency's statement to the contrary when it canceled the
prospectus.  Agency Report at 6.  In its comments on the agency report,
Starfleet does not dispute the agency's factual revision.  Instead, in light
of the new revelation, the protester argues that, given the agency's prior
record of acquiescence to congressional demands, "it is almost a forgone
conclusion that [the NPS] will again . . . extend FST's contract once this
bid protest proceeding ends."  Protester's Comments at 18.  We find that the
change in facts renders Starfleet's protest here premature.  Starfleet's
assertion that the agency will at a future time improperly extend an
incumbent's contract does not give rise to a basis of protest because it
merely anticipates adverse agency action that has not yet taken place. [12]
See Zell Partners, Ltd., B-248489, Aug. 31, 1992, 92-2 CPD ï¿½ 141 at 3 n.1.

Cancellation

Starfleet protests that the NPS's decision to cancel the Fort Sumter
prospectus lacked a reasonable basis and was the result of improper
congressional interference.  Starfleet alleges that the agency's stated
reasons for canceling the prospectus--"to allow additional review time for
the prospectus and the overall planning process" because the NPS "concluded
that issues have arisen regarding the number of departure points to the
monument"--were mere pretexts.  The protester argues that the sole reason
for the agency's decision to cancel the prospectus was improper
congressional interference in the competitive procurement process.  Protest
at 18.

In support of its contention, Starfleet points to Congressional
correspondence and other communication with the NPS related to the
prospectus and the departure point issue, including from committees with
oversight authority for the NPS and the Department of the Interior, urging
that the agency withdraw or amend the prospectus.

The agency does not deny that various members of Congress were interested in
the prospectus, or that the agency received a number of inquiries regarding
the ferryboat departure point issue.  Agency Report at 5, 8.  The agency
also acknowledges that in making her decision to cancel the prospectus, the
NPS Director took the concerns of legislators into account.  Agency Report
at 8.  Nonetheless, the agency argues that the decision by the Director to
cancel the Fort Sumter prospectus was in accordance with its own regulations
and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

While CICA governs most procurements, it exempts "procurement procedures
that are otherwise expressly authorized by statute."  41 U.S.C. ï¿½ 253
(a)(1).  The 1998 Act provides for such a procedure since it establishes the
processes that are to be followed when the NPS awards a concession
contract.  Where, as here, CICA and the implementing Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) (see FAR ï¿½ï¿½ 1.104, 2.101) do not apply to procurements that
are within our jurisdiction, we review the record to determine if the
agency's actions were reasonable and consistent with any statutes and
regulations that do apply.  Quick! The Printer,
B-252646, July 20, 1993, 93-2 CPD ï¿½ 42 at 4.  Here, the regulations
implementing the 1998 Act set out the following standard for cancellation of
a prospectus:  "The Director may cancel a solicitation at any time prior to
award of the contract if he determines in his discretion that this action is
appropriate in the public interest."[13]  36 C.F.R. ï¿½ 51.11.  Applying the
standard set forth in the regulation, based on the record here, we see no
basis to object to the agency's decision to cancel the prospectus.

Subsequent to the filing of the agency report, the NPS provided a statement
from the Director in which she set out her rationale for canceling the
prospectus.  The Director states that she was aware of the NPS's planning
documents that provided for a single ferryboat departure point at Liberty
Square; she also became aware, through significant Congressional input, of
the concerns of various constituencies whose access to Fort Sumter may be
adversely affected by the NPS decision.  Because she had questions about the
process, the Director concluded that it would be in the public interest for
NPS to review its planning documents in greater detail on the departure
point issue, and to modify the prospectus if necessary.  In order to provide
sufficient time for this review, the Director made the decision to cancel
the prospectus.[14]

We find that the agency reasonably determined that cancellation of the
prospectus here was appropriate in the public interest.  While Starfleet
argues that the NPS has already considered at length the ferryboat departure
point issue, we note that this issue has also met with controversy at
previous steps along the way.  Quite simply, the Director's decision to
cancel the prospectus provided the NPS with an additional opportunity to
review its requirements without affecting the competitive positions of
offerors.  We see no reason to object to a decision to cancel the prospectus
for this purpose.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

                          -------------------------

[1] The documents in this case include the prospectus, those submitted with
the protest (Starfleet exhs. at 1-508), and the Agency Report (Tabs A-DX).
[2] The NPS completed construction and opened the Monument Visitor Center to
the public on August 15, 2001.  Agency Report, Tab AD, Fort Sumter
Chronology, Jan. 9, 2002.  It provides visitors with an opportunity to learn
about the history and significance of Fort Sumter prior to visiting the Fort
itself.
[3] On December 21, 2000 Congress directed the NPS to extend the FST
concession contract until March 15, 2001.  Pub. L. No. 106-554, ï¿½ 120
(2000).  The NPS and FST mutually agreed to a second extension until
December 31, 2001, and to a third extension until December 31, 2002.  Agency
Report, Tab DA, Extension of FST Contract, Mar. 14, 2001; Tab AU, Extension
of FST Contract, Dec. 18, 2001.
[4] Patriots Point, operated by the state-licensed Patriots Point
Development Authority, includes such maritime attractions as the retired
aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Yorktown.  In 1986 FST entered into a long-term
lease agreement with Patriots Point, providing it with the exclusive right
to operate boat tours from the Patriots Point dock.  Agency Report, Tab E,
Newspaper Article, Mar. 21, 2002; Tab S, NPS Legal Memorandum, at 4.
[5] The prospectus also set forth the selection factors upon which the NPS
would evaluate proposals in making its award determination.  While agreement
to the
12-percent franchise fee was a minimum requirement, the prospectus informed
offerors that they could propose, and would be evaluated upon, a higher
minimum franchise fee.  Id., Proposal Package.
[6] After the opening of the Visitor Center on August 15, 2001, FST began
tour boat operations from Liberty Square (instead of the Charleston City
Marina), while continuing to operate a second departure point from Patriots
Point.  Agency Report, Tab Y, Fort Sumter Visitor Information/Passenger
Count, Jan. 23, 2002.
[7] While informing offerors that Liberty Square was the only required
departure point, the prospectus also stated that "[i]n the future, National
Park Service may choose to authorize ferry boat services to Fort Sumter from
alternate locations.  National Park Service may do this through separate
authorization or may choose, pursuant to a mutually agreed upon contract
amendment, to authorize the concessioner to provide this service."
Prospectus, Business Opportunity, at 2.
[8] Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.13(a) (2002), provide for
consideration of protests involving sales when the federal agency awarding
the contract agrees in writing to have us do so.
[9] The Claims Court has written in this regard, "[w]e note that with the
swiftly growing use of the staff system by Congress, many congressional
documents may be generated that are not really considered fully by each or
perhaps by any legislator.  Thus, committee reports and the like are perhaps
less trustworthy sources of congressional intent than they used to be . . .
."  Conlon v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 30, 33 (1985), quoting Hart v. United
States, 585 F.2d 1025, 1033 (1978).
[10] The language defining the scope of the Contract Disputes Act ("contract
for the procurement of property or services"), 41 U.S.C. ï¿½ 602(a), is the
same as that defining the scope of our jurisdiction under CICA ("contract
for the procurement of property or services").  31 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3551.
[11] We note, for example, that in the appeal of National Park Concessions,
Inc., IBCA No. 2995, 94-3 BCA ï¿½ 27,104, which is cited in the Amfac
decision, the concession contract included the contractor undertaking
approximately $3 million of building construction and improvement of
government facilities.
[12] Moreover, to the extent that Starfleet believes that the prior
extensions by the NPS of the FST contract were improper (see Protester's
Comments at 18), such protest is untimely.  Our Bid Protest Regulations
require that protests be filed not later than
10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known.  4
C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.2(a)(2).

[13] In our review of solicitation cancellations for which no regulatory
guidance exists, we have found that an agency has broad authority to decide
whether to cancel a solicitation; there need be only a reasonable basis for
the cancellation.  Lackland 21st Century Servs. Consol., B-285938.7,
B-285938.8, Dec. 4, 2001, 2001 CPD ï¿½ 197 at 5.
[14] We also disagree with Starfleet's assertion that the Director's
statement constituted a post hoc rationalization of the agency's rationale,
or that it is somehow inconsistent with the agency's decision to cancel the
prospectus.  We believe this statement provides a detailed rationale for the
contemporaneous decision to cancel by filling in previously unrecorded
details.  See NWT, Inc.; PharmChem Labs., Inc.,
B-280988, B-280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD ï¿½ 158 at 16.