BNUMBER:  B-274390.2 
DATE:  June 13, 1997
TITLE: Geonex Corporation, B-274390.2, June 13, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Geonex Corporation

File:     B-274390.2

Date:June 13, 1997

Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Gadsby & Hannah, 
for the
protester.
Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Matthew A. Anzaldi, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts &
Trowbridge, for Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., the intervenor.
James L. Weiner, Esq., and Justin P. Patterson, Esq., Department of 
the Interior, for
the agency.
John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester was not prejudiced by the agency's waiver of a requirement 
in an
architect-engineer competition that each vendor's participants in a
photointerpretation live test demonstration--one of the evaluation 
criteria--have been
employed by the vendor prior to a specific date, where the protester 
would not be
the most highly rated vendor, even if it achieved a perfect score on 
the
demonstration. 

DECISION

Geonex Corporation protests the award of a contract for 
architect-engineer (A-E)
services to Greenhorne & O'Mara, Incorporated (G&O), by the Fish and 
Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior.

We deny the protest.

The agency placed an announcement in the Commerce Business Daily on 
May 16,
1995, seeking four "units" of services in support of the agency's 
effort to classify
and map the nation's wetlands.  The synopsis requested that interested 
firms submit
Standard Forms (SF) 254 and 255 by June 16, 1995.[1]  Each unit was 
treated as a separate procurement.  This protest concerns the 
selection of a vendor for unit
one--photointerpretation services.  

The agency received the requisite forms from four firms, and 
determined that three
firms, including Geonex and G&O, were most qualified to perform the 
services.  The
agency provided each of these firms with a "statement of work" which 
further
described the agency's requirements, "clarification questions" 
concerning certain
aspects of the vendors' responses, and sample task orders to be 
completed by the
vendors.  The agency also scheduled site visits to the vendors' 
facilities, as well as
photointerpretation live test demonstrations and oral presentations by 
the vendors.

After the site visits, live test demonstrations, and oral 
presentations were
conducted, and the vendors' responses to the sample task orders and 
questions
asked by the agency during its visits to the vendors' facilities were 
received, the
agency rated the vendors under an evaluation scheme consisting of 18 
evaluation
criteria and 38 subcriteria.  G&O was rated as the most highly 
qualified firm with
[DELETED] out of 3,910 points.  Geonex received the next highest 
technical ranking of [DELETED] points, and the third offeror received 
[DELETED] points.  Accordingly, the agency selected G&O for 
negotiations, and on August 12, 1996, after the completion of price 
negotiations, awarded G&O a contract for the photointerpretation 
services.

On August 30, 1996, Geonex, the incumbent contractor for the 
photointerpretation
services, protested the award of the contract to G&O.  In that 
protest, Geonex
challenged numerous aspects of the agency's evaluation and selection 
of G&O to
perform the photointerpretation services, including the conduct and 
scoring of the
photointerpretation live test demonstrations.  The agency ultimately 
entered into a
settlement agreement with Geonex, in which, among other things, the 
agency
agreed to disregard the results of the sample task responses and 
photointerpretation
live test demonstration, and to obtain new sample task responses and 
"[r]e-do all
aspects of the photointerpretation live test demonstration."  The 
agency also agreed
that the total number of points allocated to the relevant evaluation 
criteria for the
photointerpretation live test demonstration (1,200) and sample task 
responses (500)
would remain the same.  The agency further agreed that "[t]he 
photointerpretation
live test demonstration will be limited to individuals listed in the 
parties' SF 254/255
forms originally submitted or in the employ of Geonex and G&O on March 
1, 1996." 
Based on this agreement, Geonex withdrew its protest to our Office on
November 16, 1996.

By letter dated January 15, 1997, the agency informed Geonex and G&O 
of the
schedules for their respective photointerpretation live test 
demonstrations.[2]  The letter included a list of materials that the 
agency would provide for the
photointerpretation live test demonstration, and stated that the 
photointerpreters
would "be required to identify, delineate, and classify wetlands 
within a specified
work area."  The letter added that the photointerpreters would "be 
required to
answer several fill-in-the-blank questions about a specific work area 
and several
essay questions about [the agency's] classification system," and that 
"[t]he essay
portion of the demonstration would be conducted as a closed-book 
test."  With
regard to which vendor representatives could attend the 
photointerpretation live
test demonstration, the letter specified:

     "Attendance will be limited to two photointerpreters and one 
other
     person for each vendor.  All vendor representatives in attendance 
shall
     be amongst those who are proposed by the vendor to work on the
     contract.  ALTERNATES WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ELIMINATED."   
     
The agency issued a second letter concerning the photointerpretation 
live test
demonstration "to respond to questions received as a result of the 
January 15, 1997
letter."  With regard to the photointerpretation live test 
demonstration, the second
letter stated:

     "Regarding the Live Test:

        1.  What is the total duration of the live test?

     Answer
        Four hours for the photointerpretation portion and an 
additional two
        hours to complete the fill-in-the-blank questions and essay 
questions (one
        hour for each).  There will be a one hour break following the
        photointerpretation portion prior to the two hour written test 
portion.

        2.   The instructions indicate that "All vendor 
representatives in attendance
             shall be amongst those who are proposed by the vendor to 
work on
             the contract."  Please define the government's meaning of 
the word
             'proposed' versus 'alternates' within the context of 
these written
             instructions?

     Answer
        The photointerpretation Live Test Demonstration will be 
limited to
        individuals listed in the [parties'] SF 254/255 forms as 
originally
        submitted or in the employment of your firm on March 1, 1996.  
An
        alternate is a person who does not meet these criteria."

Geonex's and G&O's photointerpretation live test demonstrations were 
conducted at
the agency's facility on February 4th and 5th, respectively.  Each 
vendor's
demonstration was attended by two photointerpreters and its proposed 
project
manager.  

The results of the live test demonstration were evaluated by the 
cognizant technical
evaluation team (TET).  Geonex's answers received [DELETED] out of 700 
points with regard to the identification, delineation, and 
classification of wetlands, and [DELETED] out of 500 points with 
regard to the fill-in-the-blank and essay questions, for a total 
photointerpretation live test demonstration score of [DELETED] out of 
1,200 points.  This score was added to Geonex's score of [DELETED] 
points received under the other 17 evaluation criteria, for a total 
score of [DELETED] out of a possible 3,910 points. G&O's answers 
received [DELETED] points with regard to the identification, 
delineation, and classification of wetlands, and [DELETED] points with 
regard to the fill-in-the-blank and essay questions.  G&O's total of 
[DELETED] points for the photointerpretation live test demonstration 
was added to its score of [DELETED] points received under the other 
evaluation criteria, for a total score of [DELETED] points.  

Because G&O received the highest technical score, the agency affirmed 
its prior
selection of G&O, rescinded the stop work order it had issued in 
response to
Geonex's initial protest, and informed G&O that it could proceed with 
its contract.

Geonex protests the agency's conduct and evaluation of the 
photointerpretation live
test demonstration.  Specifically, Geonex argues that the agency 
improperly allowed
G&O's proposed project manager, who was not listed in G&O's SF 254/255 
forms as
originally submitted or in the employ of G&O as of March 1, 1996, to 
attend and
participate in the photointerpretation live test demonstration.

The agency responds that it believes the conduct of the test was 
consistent with the
photointerpretation live test demonstration instructions implementing 
the parties'
settlement agreement, and that in any case the protester was not 
prejudiced by
G&O's project manager's participation in the demonstration.

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.  
Diverco, Inc., B-259734, Apr. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  209 at 3.  Our 
Office will not sustain a protest
unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was 
prejudiced by
the agency's actions, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, 
but for the
agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving 
the award. 
McDonald Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3.  See 
Statistica, Inc. v.
Christopher, 102 F.3d. 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Here, the record evidences that the proposed G&O project manager's 
participation
in the live test demonstration violated the clear instructions that 
prohibited the use
of individuals employed on or after March 1, 1996, and that his 
participation may
well have enhanced G&O's score.  In other words, while the agency does 
not
characterize it as such, it is apparent that the agency waived a 
solicitation
requirement to the possible advantage of G&O.  Nevertheless, we find 
that Geonex
was not prejudiced by the agency's waiver of the stated demonstration 
instructions,
given the significant difference between the vendors' final scores.

In cases such as this, where the protester argues that an agency 
waived a certain
requirement, prejudice does not mean that, had the agency failed to 
waive the
requirement, the awardee would have been unsuccessful.  Brown & Root, 
Inc. and
Perini Corp., a joint venture, B-270505.2; B-270505.3, Sept. 12, 1996, 
96-2 CPD  para.  143
at 11.  Rather, the pertinent question is whether the protester would 
have submitted
a different offer that would have had a reasonable possibility of 
being selected for
award had it known that the requirement would be waived.  Id.

Geonex states that, had it known that the agency would not enforce the 
limitation
as to which vendor representatives could attend the live test 
demonstration, it
would have, to some extent, selected other individuals to perform the 
test, which
presumably would enable it to achieve a higher score.  However, even 
if Geonex
achieved a perfect 1,200 score for the photointerpretation live test 
demonstration,
its total score of [DELETED] points ([DELETED] for the other criteria 
plus 1,200) would be less than G&O's total score ([DELETED] points); 
thus, Geonex was not prejudiced by the agency's waiver.  See Square 
537 Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, B-249403.2, Apr. 21, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
272 at 6-7.

Geonex also argues that the agency's and G&O's actions here breached 
the
settlement agreement of its prior protest, such that our Office should 
recommend
that the agency "disqualify G&O from this procurement" or "that G&O be
disqualified from evaluation criterion #18 (photointerpretation live 
test
demonstration)" in order to protect the "integrity of the procurement 
system."

Our bid protest jurisdiction is limited to deciding protests 
"concerning an alleged
violation of a procurement statute or regulation."  31 U.S.C.A.  sec.  3552 
(West Supp.
1997).  Thus, we will not consider a protest concerning the 
enforceability of a
settlement agreement unless it alleges that the agreement, if followed 
or breached,
would result in a prejudicial violation of procurement law or 
regulation.  American
Mktg. Assocs., Inc.--Recon., B-274454.4, May 14, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  183.

As discussed above, there was no prejudice here, even assuming the 
settlement
agreement was breached with respect to the participants in the 
photointerpretation
live test demonstration.  Moreover, we find no basis to eliminate G&O 
from the
competition, given that G&O's project manager readily identified 
himself to the
agency representatives upon arriving at the agency's facility for the 
live test
demonstration as a G&O employee who had not been employed by G&O prior 
to
March 1, 1996, and the agency expressly allowed him to participate.[3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. SF 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, is 
the statement of qualifications submitted annually by firms wishing to 
be considered for A-E contracts.  SF 255, Architect-Engineer and 
Related Services for Specific Project, is a supplement to SF 254 and 
requires firms to furnish job-specific experience.  See Geographic 
Resource Solutions, B-260402, June 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  278 at 2.

2. This protest does not concern the evaluation of the new sample task 
responses.

3. Our Office has recommended that a vendor be barred from 
participating in a procurement only in instances where the vendor has 
committed a particularly egregious act that adversely affects the 
integrity of the competitive system, such as making a material 
misrepresentation to the agency during the conduct of the procurement, 
see Informatics, Inc., 57 Comp. Gen. 218, 225 (1978), 78-1 CPD  para.  53 at 
13, and has upheld an agency's determination to disqualify a vendor 
from a competition where, for example, a vendor attempted to 
improperly obtain a competitor's proprietary information, and the 
agency had concluded that the protection of the integrity of the 
procurement system mandated the disqualification of the offending 
vendor.  See Compliance Corp., B-239252, Aug. 15, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  126 
at 7, recon. denied, B-239252.3, Nov. 28, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  435.  The 
protester has not shown, and the record does not evidence, that G&O's 
actions were such that the protection of the integrity of the 
procurement mandates G&O's disqualification from this competition.