TITLE:  Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-295529.2; B-295529.3, June 27, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295529.2; B-295529.3
DATE:  June 27, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.

   File: B-295529.2; B-295529.3

   Date: June 27, 2005

   David R. Johnson, Esq., Amanda J. Kastello, Esq., and Amy R. Napier, Esq.,
Vinson & Elkins, for the protester.

   Maj. Gregg A. Engler and Capt. Joseph Fratarcangeli, Department of the
Army, for the agency.

   Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   In the context of a cost comparison study of base operation services
conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, a
decision by the agency's Independent Review Official to withdraw its
certification that the agency's plan for performing the services includes
all of the required costs associated with in-house performance renders
academic a protest alleging that the agency's cost estimate for performing
the work in-house failed to include all required costs.

   DECISION

   Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (JCWS)[1] protests the decision by
the Department of the Army, pursuant to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-76, that it would be more economical to provide base
operations support services in-house at the Walter Reed Medical Center in
Washington, D.C., rather than contract for those services pursuant to
solicitation No. DADA10-03-R-0001.  JCWS argues that the cost estimate
based on the Army's plan for performing this work, which was used to
compare the cost of in-house versus contractor performance, failed to
include all of the costs required for performance.

   We dismiss the protest.

   In June 2000, the Army announced its intent to conduct an A-76 cost
comparison study of these services.  A solicitation was issued to
potential private sector offerors on June 4, 2003.  Although OMB Circular
A-76 was substantially revised on May 29, 2003, the Army received
authorization from the Department of Defense to continue with its cost
comparison study under the previous version of the A-76 Circular. 
Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. 

   Prior to receipt of proposals from private sector offerors, the Army's
plan for performing these services in-house was submitted for review to
the agency's Independent Review Officer (IRO)--in this case the Army Audit
Agency--as anticipated by the OMB Circular No. A-76 Revised Supplemental
Handbook (Mar. 1996) (hereinafter, the "Supplemental Handbook") at 12.[2] 
IRO review is required to assure that the MEO's plan for performance will
comply with the solicitation's performance work statement.  Id. at 12.  In
the event changes to the MEO are needed to meet the requirements of the
performance work statement, those changes must be made before the IRO can
certify that the MEO "reasonably establish[es] the Government's ability to
perform the [performance work statement] within the resources provided by
the MEO."  Id.  The IRO here first certified the MEO proposal in April
2004.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 84.

   After certification of the MEO, and after the receipt of  proposals from
private sector offerors, the agency issued an amendment to the
solicitation--amendment 16, issued July 23, 2004--that made numerous
changes to the performance work statement.  In September 2004, the MEO was
reopened so that changes could be made to reflect the changes in work
incorporated by amendment 16.  In the last days of September, shortly
before the cost comparison was conducted, the MEO was again certified by
the IRO.  Tr. at 44-49, 51-54.  On September 29, the date of the cost
comparison, the MEO was compared to the offer submitted by JCWS, and the
Army determined that in-house performance of these services would be less
expensive than having them performed by contract awarded to JCWS.  Tr. at
54.

   After an administrative appeal, and after an earlier protest to our
Office, this protest was filed on March 30, 2005.  As indicated above, the
instant protest argues that the MEO failed to include all of the costs
required for in-house performance of these services, and that, as a
result, the IRO's certification of the MEO was unreasonable. 

   After receipt of an agency report, and the protester's comments, our
Office held a hearing in this matter on June 8-9, to explore in greater
detail the protester's contentions.  The hearing included witnesses from
the Army Audit Agency, which, as indicated above, was serving as the
Army's IRO.  After the hearing, by letter dated June 15, the Army advised
our Office that the IRO was withdrawing its certification of the MEO
package submitted in this cost comparison study.  As a result, the Army
asked that this protest be dismissed as academic.

   By letter dated June 16, JCWS opposed the Army's request for dismissal of
the protest, and argued instead that the protest should be sustained, and
that our Office should recommend award of a contract to JCWS for the base
support services at issue. 

   In our view, the protester's challenges to the adequacy of the MEO, and to
the IRO's certification of the MEO, have been rendered academic by the
agency's actions.

   The decision of the Army's IRO to withdraw its certification of the MEO
means that the Army Audit Agency has determined that additional changes to
the MEO may be needed before the MEO can be properly certified.  Until the
IRO concludes that the MEO properly reflects the work required here,
including the work required by amendment 16 to the solicitation, there is,
in effect, no MEO to compare to JCWS's offer to perform this work.  For
this reason, we cannot grant the protester's request that we sustain this
protest and recommend award to JCWS.  If and when the IRO concludes that
the MEO can be properly certified--i.e., if and when the IRO concludes
that the MEO properly provides for performance of the work solicited
here--the Army will be in a position to complete its cost comparison
study, and the protester again will be able to challenge the outcome if it
is not selected for award. 

   In short, the situation here is analogous to an agency decision, in the
context of a protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals and
selection decision, to reevaluate one of the proposals and make a new
selection decision.  In such a case, the protest is rendered academic by
the agency's action.  See OEA, Inc., B-226971, May 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD
paragraph 530 at 1-2.  We do not consider academic protests because to do
so would serve no useful public policy purpose.  East West Research,
Inc.--Recon., B-233623.2, Apr. 14, 1989, 89-1 CPD paragraph 379 at 2. 

   The protest is dismissed.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1]JCWS changed its name to IAP World Services, Inc., effective March 30,
2005.  Since the proposal was submitted under the name JCWS, and this
protest was initially filed under that name, this decision will refer to
the company as JCWS, rather than IAP.

   [2] When activities deemed "commercial" are subjected to a cost comparison
study pursuant to the OMB Circular, the Supplemental Handbook terms the
government's plan for performing such activities (and specifically, the
in-house organization proferred for performance of those activities) the
Most Efficient Organization (MEO).  Supplemental Handbook at 36.