REEP, Inc., B-290688, September 20, 2002

B-290688 Sep 20, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is dismissed as premature where award has not yet been made. We recognize that it could be argued that the failure to exclude a firm with an alleged conflict of interest from a competition is a defect in a solicitation that should be challenged prior to the submission of proposals or quotations. Are not generally the vehicle for excluding firms with a conflict of interest from competing for award. Conflicts are generally handled on a case-by-case basis without public notice through the solicitation. Unless the firm with the alleged conflict of interest is actually selected for award. We will not sustain a protest absent a showing of such prejudice. The protest is dismissed. View Decision REEP, Inc., B-290688, September 20, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION REEP, Inc. protests the actions of the Department of the Army in connection with its effort to obtain language training services under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) using request for quotations (RFQ) No. DAKF23-02-Q-0059. REEP principally maintains that another firm, Worldwide Language Resources, Inc., has a conflict of interest, and that the agency should preclude it from competing for its language training requirements. We dismiss the protest. The agency advises our Office that it has made no award decision in connection with the acquisition. This being the case, REEP's protest merely anticipates what it considers improper action by the agency, namely, award to Worldwide. We recognize that it could be argued that the failure to exclude a firm with an alleged conflict of interest from a competition is a defect in a solicitation that should be challenged prior to the submission of proposals or quotations. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (2002). Solicitation provisions, however, are not generally the vehicle for excluding firms with a conflict of interest from competing for award; rather, conflicts are generally handled on a case-by-case basis without public notice through the solicitation. Moreover, treating protests such as this one as premature may avoid unnecessary litigation, since the allegedly conflicted firm may not be the eventual awardee, either because it loses the competition or because the agency ultimately concludes that the firm has an impermissible conflict of interest. See Saturn Indus.--Recon., B-261954.4, July 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 25 at 5. Unless the firm with the alleged conflict of interest is actually selected for award, the protester has not suffered any competitive prejudice; we will not sustain a protest absent a showing of such prejudice. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3 d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The protest is dismissed. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel Read more Request File GAO Contacts Shirley A. Jones Managing Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel jonessa@gao.gov Media Inquiries Sarah Kaczmarek Managing Director Office of Public Affairs media@gao.gov Public Inquiries Contact Us Related Pages Related Appropriations Law Related Bid Protests Related Decisions & FAQs Related The Red Book Related Contract Appeals Board Related Federal Vacancies Reform Act Related Congressional Review Act