BNUMBER:  B-272181.6; B-272181.7; B-272181.8; B-272181.9
DATE:  August 16, 1996
TITLE:  Fred Schreiber; V. David Pique & Associates; Francene
Tearpock-Martini & Associates, Inc.; Georgette Gerbin; Crawford &
Company; Gary A. Peterson; Wilson Rehabilitation Services; Jane Boyer
McGuigan; Rehabilitation Planning, Inc.

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

Matter of:Fred Schreiber; V. David Pique & Associates; Francene 
Tearpock-Martini & Associates, Inc.; Georgette Gerbin; Crawford & 
Company; Gary A. Peterson; Wilson Rehabilitation Services; Jane Boyer 
McGuigan; Rehabilitation Planning, Inc.

File:     B-272181; B-272181.2; B-272181.3; B-272181.4; B-272181.5; 
          B-272181.6; B-272181.7; B-272181.8; B-272181.9

Date:August 16, 1996

Fred Schreiber; V. David Pique for V. David Pique & Associates; 
Francene Tearpock-Martini for Francene Tearpock-Martini & Associates, 
Inc.; Georgette Gerbin; Kevin W. Bortnyik for Crawford & Company; Gary 
A. Peterson; Marian Wilson for Wilson Rehabilitation Services; Jane 
Boyer McGuigan; and  Robert D. Cipko for Rehabilitation Planning, 
Inc., protesters.
Vaughn E. Hill, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protests against nonselection of vocational rehabilitation counselors 
(VRCs) for participation in certification program is dismissed since 
agency's actions in selecting which VRCs to include in certification 
program do not constitute a procurement of goods or services over 
which the General Accounting Office exercises jurisdiction.

DECISION

Fred Schreiber, V. David Pique & Associates, Francene Tearpock-Martini 
& Associates, Inc., Georgette Gerbin, Crawford & Company, Gary A. 
Peterson, Wilson Rehabilitation Services, Jane Boyer McGuigan, and 
Rehabilitation Planning, Inc. protest their nonselection for a 
certification program offered by the Department of Labor (DOL) for 
vocational rehabilitation counselors (VRC).  The protesters contend 
that the agency erred in evaluating their applications for this 
program.

We dismiss the protests for lack of jurisdiction.

Under the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 
U.S.C.  sec.  8104 (1994), and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.  sec.  939 (1994), the Secretary of Labor is 
required to arrange for vocational rehabilitation counseling services 
for eligible individuals.  Pursuant to this overall direction, DOL has 
established a certification program for VRCs to ensure their 
availability.  Under this program, the agency obtains application 
packages from VRCs interested in becoming certified; those applicants 
deemed qualified are required to attend a 2-day course, at the 
conclusion of which the applicants receive the DOL certification.  The 
certified VRCs are then included on a list and, when the need arises, 
an individual eligible for such services is referred to a certified 
VRC for purposes of receiving vocational rehabilitation services.  If 
the certified VRC is willing to accept the referral, he or she advises 
the agency of this fact.  The VRC then provides the services, and 
receives compensation from the agency.

Here, the protesters timely responded to DOL's Commerce Business Daily 
announcement calling for application packages.  After reviewing all of 
the application packages, DOL selected a number of individuals to 
attend the 2-day course and become certified; none of the protesters 
was selected for certification, and each maintains that the 
nonselection was due to an erroneous evaluation.

The agency action complained of here does not constitute a procurement 
of goods or services, and thus is beyond our jurisdiction.  The 
Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3551-3556 (1994), which 
establishes the procurement protest system under which we review the 
contracting actions of federal agencies, limits our review to 
consideration of objections to solicitations, proposed awards, and 
awards of contracts for the procurement of property.  Where an agency 
has merely rejected an applicant under a prequalification procedure 
that does not involve the issuance of a solicitation or the award or 
proposed award of a contract,  our Office does not have bid protest 
jurisdiction over the agency's actions.

A selection procedure such as this that does not guarantee successful 
applicants an opportunity to perform the work in question, require 
that they perform any particular work, or obligate the government to 
pay for any services is a type of prequalification procedure, not the 
award of a contract.  See Michael J. O'Kane; Lorna H. Owens, B-257384; 
B-257384.2, Sept. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  120 (General Accounting Office 
does not have jurisdiction to consider protest against agency 
procedure for creating list of attorneys eligible to represent 
defendants pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.  sec.  3006A 
(1994), since such procedure is merely a preliminary screening process 
that does not guarantee any attorney an appointment as defense 
counsel, does not obligate the attorney to provide representation in a 
specific case, and does not obligate the government to pay the 
attorney for any services).

In this regard, the procedure at issue here clearly is only for the 
prequalification of VRCs.  Successful applicants are only afforded an 
opportunity to attend a course and become certified VRCs.  Those 
applicants who become certified VRCs are not guaranteed any work as a 
result of the procedure, and certified VRCs properly may decline any 
particular referral from the agency; the certification arrangement 
also does not create an obligation on the part of the government to 
pay a certified VRC.  In these circumstances, DOL's selection or 
nonselection of VRCs for certification under the procedure at issue 
here does not involve the solicitation for, or the award or proposed 
award of, a contract and therefore is not subject to our bid protest 
jurisdiction.[1]

The protests are dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. We considered DOL's actions in connection with its VRC 
certification procedures in Sevdy and Lockett, Vocational 
Consultants--Recon., B-225825.2, July 20, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  66.  There, 
however, the issue of our jurisdiction was not raised or considered.  
Pursuant to this decision, we will no longer consider a bid protest 
challenging nonselection for the VRC certification program.