TITLE: B-298522, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., August 11, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298522
DATE: August 11, 2006
**************************************************************
B-298522, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., August 11, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.

   File: B-298522

   Date: August 11, 2006

   Michael R. Charness, Esq., Amy R. Napier, Esq., Amanda J. Dietrick, Esq.,
   Alexander O. Levine, Esq., and Suzanne D. Reifman, Esq., Vinson & Elkins
   LLP, for the protester.

   Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Nicole J. Owren Wiest, Esq.,
   Daniel P. Graham, Esq., and William J. Colwell, Esq., Wiley Rein &
   Fielding LLP, for The Boeing Company, the intervenor.

   Bryan R. O'Boyle, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest complaining that selection of the awardee's proposal under a
   procurement in 2001 was the result of the source selection authority's
   (SSA) bias in favor of the awardee is dismissed as untimely, where (1)
   protester initially challenged the agency's award decision in a protest
   filed with GAO in 2001 and withdrew its protest after reviewing the
   evaluation record, which showed that evaluation ratings had been changed
   in a way that appeared to favor the awardee; and (2) the SSA publicly
   admitted in 2004 to being biased in favor of the awardee as result of
   favors that she had received. The later issuance in 2006 of a report by
   the Department of Defense Inspector General that confirmed that the SSA's
   bias extended to the procurement at issue in this protest does not provide
   an independent basis for a timely protest, where the protester knew or
   should have known the basis of its protest allegation after the SSA's 2004
   admission of bias in favor of the awardee.

   DECISION

   Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. protests the award of a contract to
   Boeing Satellite Systems, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   F0701-01-R-0500, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the Conical
   Microwave Imager Sounder (CMIS) sensor design. Ball complains that
   Boeing's proposal was selected as a result of the bias of Darleen Druyun,
   the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement; that source
   selection personnel "used undefined and inconsistently applied evaluation
   ratings;" and that the evaluation was inadequately documented.

   We dismiss the protest as untimely.

   The CMIS program supports the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
   Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), the mission of which is to
   provide a single, national, polar-orbiting remote-sensing capability to
   acquire, receive and disseminate global and regional environmental data
   for military and civilian users. The CMIS sensor--one of a number of
   sensors used by the NPOESS--is intended to collect microwave radiometry
   and sounding data, including atmospheric temperature and moisture
   profiles, clouds, sea surface winds, and all-weather land/water/ice
   surface information. Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact, B-288554,
   Sept. 6, 2001, at 1.

   The Air Force implemented the CMIS sensor acquisition in two phases. Under
   Phase I, Ball and Boeing were awarded contracts for sensor design and risk
   reduction. The RFP at issue here was issued on March 2, 2001 under phase
   II for further sensor design and provided for an award to a single
   contractor on the basis of a cost/technical tradeoff. Following
   discussions, the Air Force selected Boeing's proposal for award.

   On August 9, 2001, Ball timely protested the award to Boeing to our
   Office, arguing, among other things, that the agency had improperly
   changed Ball's evaluation ratings and that Ball's and Boeing's proposals
   had not been evaluated in an "even-handed manner." After its attorneys
   received a copy of the agency's evaluation record, pursuant to our
   protective order, Ball withdrew its protest. The evaluation record showed
   that the offerors' evaluation ratings had been changed in a way that
   appeared to favor Boeing after an initial briefing to Ms. Druyun in her
   role as the SSA.

   On April 20, 2004, Ms. Druyun pled guilty in the United States District
   Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for conspiring with Boeing's
   chief financial officer to help The Boeing Company win a tanker leasing
   contract with the Air Force. In a supplemental statement filed October 1,
   2004 in federal court, which was publicly available, Ms. Druyun admitted
   favoring Boeing in certain negotiations, including four identified
   contracts--but not this procurement--as a result of her employment
   negotiations with Boeing and as a result of Boeing's employment,
   at Ms. Druyun's request, of her daughter and future son-in-law in 2000.
   Protest, attach. 5, Ms. Druyun's Supplemental Statement of Facts, at 1-2.

   On July 10, 2006, the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Defense
   (DoD) issued a report on the CMIS phase II procurement, concluding that
   Ms. Druyun, then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
   Acquisition and Management, lacked impartiality with respect to Boeing and
   that she had "manipulated complex proposal evaluation ratings to benefit
   [Boeing's] and hinder [Ball's] proposal[s]." Protest, attach. 1, DoD IG
   Report No. D-2006-097, July 10, 2006, at 4. The report was posted on the
   IG's web-site on July 12, and Ball filed this protest of the award to
   Boeing with our Office on July 21.

   The Air Force and Boeing request that we dismiss the protest as untimely,
   because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after the date upon which
   Ball knew or should have known the basis of its protest allegations.
   Specifically, the agency argues that Ball knew the bases of its protest
   "in August - September 2001, when Ball filed its first protest; or, at the
   latest, October 1, 2004, when Mrs. Druyun's Supplemental Statement of
   Facts was filed in her criminal proceeding wherein she admitted to
   corruptly favoring Boeing because of her employment negotiations and other
   favors provided to her by Boeing." See Agency Motion to Dismiss at 3. The
   agency and intervenor note that the DoD IG's report cites no new evidence
   supporting the IG's findings and that, rather, the report is based upon
   the 2001 evaluation record and Ms. Druyun's supplemental statement of
   fact. See id.; Intervenor's Dismissal Request at 1-2.

   Ball responds that it was not until the IG reported that Ms. Druyun had
   manipulated the evaluation ratings in this procurement to favor Boeing
   that Ball had a basis for its protest. Ball argues that Ms. Druyun's
   supplemental statement of fact "made it appear that Druyun's illegal
   activities had been limited to a few, specific procurements" and that a
   protest alleging that Ms. Druyun steered an award to Boeing in this
   procurement would have been speculative prior to the IG finding that this
   was the case. Protester's Response to the Dismissal Requests at 6.
   Specifically, Ball states that

     [a]lthough Ball knew before it received the [IG's] report that Druyun
     had previously admitted to influencing other unrelated procurements and
     Ball had previously believed that it had not been fairly evaluated by
     the Air Force, it could not have known prior to receiving the [IG's]
     report that Druyun possessed a bias that directly caused the unequal and
     unfair treatment it received on the CMIS Phase II procurement.

   Id. at 3.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission
   of protests. These rules require that a protest based on other than
   alleged improprieties in a solicitation be filed, either with the agency
   or our Office, no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or
   should have known, the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2006). Our timeliness rules reflect the dual
   requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases
   and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying
   the procurement process. Peacock, Myers & Adams, B-279327, Mar. 24, 1998,
   98-1 CPD para. 94 at 3-4.

   We conclude that, although Ms. Druyun's supplemental statement of fact did
   not specifically identify this procurement as one that she steered to
   Boeing, Ball knew or should have known the basis of its protest that the
   award to Boeing was the result of Ms. Druyun's bias after Ball learned of
   the content of Ms. Druyun's supplemental statement. At that time, Ball
   knew that Ms. Druyun had admitted being biased in favor of Boeing as a
   result of favors received in 2000 and had acted on this bias in certain
   procurements, and Ball also knew that the evaluation ratings in this
   procurement had, in fact, been changed after the initial briefing to Ms.
   Druyun in a manner that favored Boeing and which Ball asserted was
   arbitrary when it filed its prior protest. These facts were sufficient to
   inform Ball of its protest grounds. In this regard, we disagree that a
   protest of this award in October 2004 on the basis of Ms. Druyun's bias
   would have been speculative. Evidence showing the change in evaluation
   ratings in this procurement coupled with Ms. Druyun's admitted bias in
   favor of Boeing for favors received in 2000 is more than sufficient to
   have supported a timely protest.

   In our decisions in Lockheed Martin Corp., B-295402, Feb. 18, 2005, 2005
   CPD para. 24 at 2-3, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. et al., B-295401
   et al., Feb. 24, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 41 at 2-3, we noted that our
   timeliness rules generally preclude consideration of protests challenging
   agency actions, such as presented in those cases and here, that occurred
   in the relatively distant past. Unlike the situation presented here, the
   protests filed in those two cases were timely filed with the agency after
   the public disclosure in October 2004 of documents relating to
   Ms. Druyun's criminal conviction. We recognize that the procurements at
   issue in those two cases were specifically identified in Ms. Druyun's
   supplemental statement as procurements that she had improperly influenced.
   However, contrary to Ball's arguments that Ms. Druyun's supplemental
   statement was limited to four identified procurements, not including the
   CMIS procurement at issue here, Ms. Druyun actually stated:

     The defendant, since July 28, 2004, now acknowledges that she did favor
     the Boeing Company in certain negotiations as a result of her employment
     negotiations and other favors provided by Boeing to the defendant.
     Defendant acknowledges that Boeing's employment of her future son-in-law
     and her daughter in 2000, at the defendant's request, along with the
     defendant's desire to be employed by Boeing, influenced her government
     decisions in matters affecting Boeing. That as a result of the loss of
     her objectivity, she took actions which harmed the United States to
     include the following: [four identified procurements]

   Protest, attach. 5, Ms. Druyun's Supplemental Statement of Facts, at 2
   (footnote omitted). It is apparent that Ms. Druyun's statement does not
   restrict her bias in favor of Boeing to the four identified procurements;
   rather, the statement plainly indicates that her bias in favor of Boeing
   included, but was not limited to, the identified procurements.

   Here, Ball knew from its review of the evaluation record that evaluation
   ratings had been changed in a way that appeared to favor Boeing and admits
   that it believed that the Air Force had unfairly evaluated Ball's
   proposal. See Protester's Response to the Dismissal Requests at 3. In our
   view, Ball's review of the evaluation record when coupled with the public
   disclosure of Ms. Druyun's admitted bias in favor of Boeing at the time of
   this procurement placed Ball upon notice of its protest grounds. In this
   regard, we find that the IG's later confirmation in 2006 that Ms. Druyun's
   bias extended to this procurement does not provide Ball with an
   independent ground to timely challenge the selection of Boeing's proposal
   under the RFP. See, e.g., MR&S/AME, An MSC Joint Venture, B-250313.2, Mar.
   19, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 245 at 8 n.2 (protester not entitled to await its
   own investigation to confirm facts where the record shows that the
   protester already knew the essential basis of its protest); Trend Constr.
   & Assocs.--Recon., B-222817.2, May 8, 1986, 86-1 CPD para. 445 at 3 (GAO's
   timeliness rules for filing protests are not tolled by the receipt of
   information through a Freedom of Information Act request that confirms a
   protest basis that the protester already knew).

   Ball also argues that, even if its protest is untimely, we should consider
   the protest under our significant issue exception to our timeliness rules.
   Our Regulations provide that we may consider an untimely protest where we
   determine that a protest raises issues significant to the procurement
   system. See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(c). We have limited this exception,
   however, to protests that raise issues of widespread interest to the
   procurement community and that have not been considered on the merits in a
   previous decision. See Systems Plus, Inc., B-297215 et al., Dec. 16, 2005,
   2006 CPD para. 10 at 3 n.3. While we recognize that the corruption that
   Ms. Druyun's actions represent has been of widespread interest well beyond
   the procurement community, the fact is that we have twice addressed the
   impact of her bias in favor of Boeing. See Lockheed Martin Corp., supra;
   Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. et al., supra. Accordingly, we find that
   because Ball's protest does not provide novel issues that have not been
   previously considered by our Office, it would not be appropriate for us to
   invoke the "significant issue" exception to our timeliness rules here.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel