DISMISSED: May 16, 1995 GSBCA 13240-P AT&T CORP., NETWORK SYSTEMS DIVISION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, and NORTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor. Francis J. O'Toole, David Lewis, Howard Stanislawski, and Joseph C. Port, Jr., of Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC; and Nathaniel Friends and Steven W. DeGeorge of AT&T, Silver Spring, MD, counsel for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, McLean, VA; Roger Willmeth, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC; and Major Mark R. Land, USAF, and George W. Holliday, McClellan Air Force Base, CA, counsel for Respondent. William H. Butterfield, Kevin P. Connelly, and Trisa J. Thompson of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and BORWICK. DANIELS, Board Judge. AT&T Corp., Network Systems Division (AT&T), protests the Department of the Air Force's second award of a contract to NORTEL Federal Systems, Inc. (NORTEL), for the supply of telecommunications systems. The contract is to replace outdated telephone switching systems at Air Force and other Department of Defense installations with the latest commercially available digital integrated voice, data, image, and video information switching systems. The contract requires NORTEL to install two systems at specified sites and permits the ordering of additional systems (estimated to number 128, of which 28 are "type I," or larger, systems, and the remainder are "type II," or smaller ones) on an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity basis over a five-year period. AT&T's protest against the Air Force's initial award to NORTEL was granted. The Board found that the source selection decision was flawed because it was based on an inaccurate and misleading assessment of the attributes of the two proposals. Of the ratings agency evaluators ascribed to the proposals, some were without justification and others were made without consideration of highly relevant information known to agency personnel involved in the procurement. AT&T Corp., Network Systems Div. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 13107-P, 1995 BPD 54 (Feb. 10, 1995). As authorized by the Board, the Air Force reviewed the ratings, revised two of them, and made another selection decision, again resulting in an award to NORTEL. AT&T challenges this decision for several reasons. According to the protester, the second selection, like the first, was based on arbitrary evaluations of the proposals. AT&T maintains that the second selection was additionally marked by four other prejudicial errors: a failure to follow the solicitation's command that evaluation criteria be considered in descending order of importance, an irrational cost-technical tradeoff, bias toward NORTEL, and flagrant violations of the Board's orders. AT&T filed two motions for summary relief. In the first, the protester contends that given the Air Force's new ratings, it is mathematically impossible, applying any rational descending order of importance of evaluation criteria, to award the contract to NORTEL. In the second motion, AT&T asserts that uncontested facts show the Air Force's "low" rating of NORTEL's cost performance risk to be irrational, and that if that rating is changed to "moderate," it is mathematically impossible to justify an award to NORTEL. While these motions were pending, the Air Force terminated for the convenience of the Government its contract with NORTEL. The agency then filed a motion to dismiss the protest as moot. Appended to the motion is a declaration of the Air Force's program manager. The declaration explains that the Government's requirements for telecommunications switching systems have changed from the ones estimated in the solicitation. According to the program manager, the Air Force now believes that it is likely to need more switches of type I, and less of type II, than it had earlier thought; and there is now considerable uncertainty about whether current projections are accurate. The agency represents, in its motion: "The procurement is not being canceled [sic] as of this time. . . . The Air Force will reevaluate its true needs. . . . We may reevaluate, may order new BAFOs [best and final offers], may resolicit. We may take other appropriate action." Motion at 2, 4. NORTEL and AT&T agree that the program manager's declaration does not show that the Government's requirements have changed. NORTEL says that the reasons for terminating the contract "appear highly questionable"; AT&T calls the assertion that the agency must "reevaluate its true needs" a "pretext" which "strains credulity." NORTEL Response to Air Force Motion at 4; AT&T Opposition at 1, 15. These two parties quarrel over the consequences of the Air Force's termination decision on this protest, however. According to NORTEL, this action removed the object of the complaint, so the protest must be dismissed. Further, NORTEL says, because the Air Force has not decided what it will do next, a protest by AT&T as to any subsequent action would be premature. The only agency determination as to which a protest could currently be heard, NORTEL maintains, is a complaint by NORTEL against the decision to terminate its contract for convenience. AT&T, on the other hand, notes that a case is moot only "where it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violations will recur and interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the alleged violation." Severn Companies, Inc., GSBCA 9344-P, 88-2 BCA 20,566, at 103,966, 1988 BPD 25, at 3; RMTC Systems, GSBCA 8732-P, 87-1 BCA 19,557, at 98,851, 1986 BPD 222, at 3- 4 (citing County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). Because the procurement is not yet complete, AT&T maintains, the Air Force cannot meet this test, so the case is not moot. The proper course of action, the protester contends, is to grant the protest on the basis of the record as already established (presumably, by granting one of the motions for summary relief). AT&T is correct in saying that we have on occasion granted protests, rather than dismissing them, when the agency terminated a challenged contract and the record demonstrated a violation of law. In those cases, however, the termination action was clearly premised upon an admission (sometimes explicit, sometimes constructive) that a valid protest ground existed. E.g., DPSC Software, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 12315-P (12241-P), 93-3 BCA 26,052, 1993 BPD 112; Federal Systems Group, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12238-P, et al., 93-3 BCA 25,949, 1993 BPD 100; HSQ Technology, Inc., GSBCA 10802-P, 91-1 BCA 23,326, 1990 BPD 271; Severn Companies. Here, the purported reason for the termination has nothing to do with any of AT&T's grounds of protest. AT&T is also correct in saying that the termination of NORTEL's contract may not have "completely and irrevocably eradicated" the alleged violations of law. The Air Force does not know at this time how it will proceed with the challenged procurement. A future agency action could trigger the same or similar protest grounds as the ones AT&T has raised here. If the Air Force proceeds to award the contract to AT&T, that offeror presumably would have no interest in filing another protest in this procurement; but if the correctness of the allegations of the current protest became critical to a ruling on an application for reimbursement of protest costs, we might consider it. If the Air Force takes some other action which AT&T believes to be contrary to law -- such as canceling the procurement or requesting another round of best and final offers -- that firm could file a new protest against that action. If any of the issues raised now became relevant to that case, we would review them in that context. Whether NORTEL wishes to challenge the termination of its contract through the protest process is a separate matter; AT&T's allegations could conceivably be addressed through a NORTEL protest, as well. See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243, 3294 ( 1438); 60 Fed. Reg. 17023 (Apr. 4, 1995) (provision applies to all proceedings filed on or after May 5, 1995); OAO Corp. v. Johnson, 49 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Whatever might happen in the future, however, our disposition of this case must turn on the current status of the case. We may not examine AT&T's allegations now. The Board's protest authority extends only to "any decision by a contracting officer that is alleged to violate a statute, a regulation, or the conditions of a delegation of procurement authority." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) (as amended by Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. at 3291-92 ( 1432)). The instant protest challenges a contract award which no longer exists, and no subsequent contracting officer decision has been made in the subject procurement. This protest is therefore at an end. Logicon, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12703-P, 94-2 BCA 26,667, 1994 BPD 15; I-Net, Inc., GSBCA 9115-P, 87-3 BCA 20,153, 1987 BPD 176. Decision The protest is DISMISSED. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge