BNUMBER:  B-271469
DATE:  July 23, 1996
TITLE:  Interior Systems, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Interior Systems, Inc.

File:     B-271469

Date:July 23, 1996

Carol L. O'Riordan, Esq., and Vincent R. Brotski, Esq., Law Offices of 
Carol L. O'Riordan, for the protester.
Marleen J. Phillips, Esq., and Eric A. Lile, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly disclosed protester's proprietary 
information in a solicitation is denied where record shows that the 
information in question was developed by the government and, 
therefore, is not proprietary to the protester.

DECISION

Interior Systems, Inc., (ISI) protests the terms of request for 
proposals (RFP)       No. N00600-96-R-1427, issued by the Fleet and 
Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Department of the Navy, for 
consolidated mail sorting services.  The principal allegation is that 
the issuance of the solicitation constituted an intentional improper 
disclosure of information which is proprietary to the protester.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND
     
In 1994, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) became 
part of a government-wide Cooperative Administrative Support Unit 
(CASU) which was intended to provide administrative services to 
multiple agencies to avoid duplication of effort and achieve savings.  
USDA's CASU participation included efforts to implement a 
government-wide mail management initiative including a presorting 
program.  ISI representatives met with various CASU officials, 
including representatives from USDA, from February 1995 through May 
1995 concerning efforts to consolidate the presorting of mail among 
various governmental activities; ISI expressed interest in obtaining 
an 8(a) subcontract to establish and perform the government-wide 
program.

On May 25, USDA informed the protester that it wished to pursue 
negotiations with a view to awarding a non-competitive 8(a) 
subcontract.[1]  As part of this effort, on May 30 USDA provided ISI a 
copy of a statement of work (SOW) previously issued by the General 
Services Administration (GSA) and requested that the firm use it as a 
model in preparing a draft SOW for the 8(a) subcontract.  ISI 
submitted a draft SOW 2 days later on June 1.  USDA subsequently 
modified the draft and incorporated a final SOW into solicitation No. 
RFP-00-96-R-1, which was issued to ISI under the 8(a) program on 
August 25. 

On November 15, USDA informed ISI that it had determined not to 
proceed with the acquisition under this solicitation because it had 
recently acquired certain automated sorting equipment in its central 
mail unit.  Thereafter, on November 22, the CASU sent the Department 
of the Navy a request for consolidated mail sorting services together 
with a draft SOW which, after some modification, was incorporated into 
the protested RFP which was issued on February 29, 1996, for 
competition on an unrestricted basis.  This protest followed.

PROTEST

ISI principally alleges that the issuance of the Navy's solicitation 
constitutes an improper disclosure of proprietary information insofar 
as the agency appropriated the SOW submitted to USDA during the early 
stages of the 8(a) procurement in 1995.  ISI also challenges several 
solicitation provisions.

ANALYSIS

As a general rule, proprietary information is that which is marked 
proprietary or otherwise submitted in confidence to the government.  
Typically, this includes such information as a firm's overhead and 
profit rates, and does not include information that the firm could 
expect to be released to the public.  Ursery Cos., Inc., supra.

The record does not support ISI's allegation that the Navy's SOW uses 
material that is proprietary to the protester.  First, the SOW drafted 
by ISI for USDA was not marked proprietary when submitted in June of 
1995.  Moreover, as the agency's point-by-point comparative analysis 
of ISI's SOW, the Navy's SOW and GSA's SOW reveals, the SOWs consist 
of three categories of information:  (1) information which is common 
to all three, meaning that it was derived from the GSA SOW and is, 
therefore, not proprietary to ISI; (2) information which is unique to 
ISI's SOW but not contained in the Navy's SOW, meaning that the Navy 
did not use this allegedly proprietary material; and, (3) information 
which is unique to the Navy's SOW and not contained in ISI's SOW.  In 
its comments on the agency report, ISI does not present a credible 
rebuttal to the agency's analysis and our review of the three SOWs 
confirms the accuracy of the Navy's position.

Accordingly, since the analysis of the material at issue compels the 
conclusion that the Navy did not use or disseminate information which 
was unique to ISI's SOW draft, we conclude that the information in the 
present SOW is simply not proprietary to the protester as alleged.

ISI also challenges several solicitation provisions.  First, the firm 
alleges that the Navy included an overly restrictive 12-month 
experience requirement in an effort to eliminate the protester from 
consideration.  As the agency points out, however, the protester now 
has the requisite experience, thus rendering its challenge academic.  
Second, ISI contended that the solicitation contained the wrong small 
business size standard in an effort to eliminate the protester from 
competition; the size standard was subsequently modified by amendment 
and ISI is eligible for consideration under the new standard.  Third, 
ISI originally challenged the evaluation provisions of the RFP as 
being ambiguous; these provisions were subsequently modified by 
amendment without any specific challenge by the protester.  Finally, 
ISI challenges the RFP as being deficient because it did not identify 
a contracting officer by name. While we are unaware of any requirement 
for such a provision, in fact, the name of the contracting officer was 
publicly available, and was obtained by ISI prior to the filing of its 
protest.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994), 
authorizes the Small Business Administration to enter into contracts 
with government agencies and to arrange for performance through 
subcontracts with socially and economically disadvantaged small 
business concerns.  These subcontracts may be awarded on a competitive 
or noncompetitive basis.  See Ursery Cos., Inc., B-258247, Dec. 29, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  264.