December 23, 2003

Appeal of

KELLEY MCDONALD ARAGON

Under Contract No. 2BRPSR-03-B-1716

PSBCA No. 5053

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:

Kelly McDonald Aragon

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Judith K. Zehner, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

            Appellant, Kelly McDonald Aragon, has appealed from a decision of a contracting officer denying her protest of award of a contract by Respondent, United States Postal Service.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Appellant was the operator of the Counselor, New Mexico Contract Postal Unit (“CPU”) under a contract with Respondent (Appellant’s Letter dated October 22, 2003).

            2.  Respondent solicited offers for the continued operation of the CPU, and   Appellant submitted a proposal (Appellant’s Letter dated October 22, 2003).

            3.  However, Respondent selected a competitor's proposal, and Appellant protested to the contracting officer, contending that her offer was better than her competitor’s and asking that the award be made to her (Appellant’s Letters dated October 22 and 24, 2003).

            4.  The contracting officer denied her protest (Letter dated September 3, 2003), and when she filed her protest again, the contracting officer again denied it by letter dated October 10, 2003.  The contracting officer identified the second denial as a contracting officer’s final decision under the Contract Disputes Act and advised Appellant that she could appeal his decision to the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals.  (Letter dated October 10, 2003).

            5.  By letter dated October 22, 2003, Appellant asked the Board to reverse the decision of the contracting officer and to stay award of the contract until the matter was resolved.

DECISION

            In her notice of appeal and Complaint, Appellant protests Respondent’s selection of her competitor for award of the contract and, relying on Respondent’s regulations governing protests, asks the Board to stay award of the contract.

            This Board has no jurisdiction to consider bid protests, see Coastal Corp. v. United States, 713 F.2d 728 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Dill’s Star Route, Inc., PSBCA No. 3699, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,608; Patricia A. Thompson, PSBCA No. 1625, 87-2 BCA ¶ 19,774, and the contracting officer’s issuance of what purports to be a final decision addressing Appellant’s protest does not confer such jurisdiction on the Board, see ITS, Inc., ASBCA No. 52802, 2001-1 BCA ¶ 31,223. We have no authority to reverse a contract award or direct award to another.  Dill’s Star Route, Inc., PSBCA No. 3699, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,608.

            By Order dated October 28, 2003, the Board stated its intention to dismiss this appeal and gave Appellant an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  She has failed to do so.

            Accordingly, as we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal or authority to grant the relief sought, the appeal is dismissed.

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member

I concur:

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur:

David I. Brochstein

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman