BNUMBER:  B-281606             
DATE:  March 10, 1999
TITLE: Borders Consulting, Inc., B-281606, March 10, 1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Borders Consulting, Inc.

File:B-281606            
        
Date:March 10, 1999

James Thompson, Esq., Dauer & Thompson, for the protester. 
Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, 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

Protest that evaluation criteria are designed to "steer" award to 
particular firm is denied where criteria directly relate to statement 
of work.

DECISION

Borders Consulting, Inc. protests the terms of request for quotations 
(RFQ) No. 99-SQ-20-10047, issued by the Department of the Interior 
(DOI) for evaluation and upgrade of the agency's Mid-Pacific Internet 
web sites.  Borders principally argues that the solicitation's 
evaluation criteria are improper and that certain of the agency's 
technical evaluators should be excluded from participation in the 
acquisition.  

We deny the protest.

The RFQ contemplates the award of an indefinite-quantity contract to 
evaluate the agency's mid-Pacific Internet web sites and to implement 
and maintain a more effective and efficient Internet presence.  This 
RFQ is the second solicitation issued by the agency for this 
requirement; Borders protested the award under an earlier solicitation 
(B-281308, dismissed as academic, Nov. 9, 1998), and the agency issued 
this RFQ as part of its corrective action in response to that protest.  

Borders takes specific issue with two criteria--experience and 
knowledge of secure electronic commerce development, and experience 
and knowledge of web-based security--asserting that they do not 
reflect the statement of work.  Borders also asserts more generally 
that the evaluation criteria were designed to favor the prior awardee, 
that is, to enable the agency to ratify its earlier source selection 
decision. 

Agencies enjoy broad discretion in selecting evaluation criteria and 
we will not object to a solicitation's evaluation scheme so long as it 
reasonably relates to the agency's needs.  Madison Servs., Inc., 
B-278962, Apr. 17, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  113 at 3.  The fact that a 
solicitation's technical requirements or evaluation criteria may favor 
one offeror over another is unobjectionable, so long as they reflect 
the agency's actual needs, and the advantage enjoyed by a particular 
firm is not the result of improper government action.  Id.

Borders's assertions relating to the two specific evaluation criteria 
are without merit.  The first criterion specifies that proposals will 
be assessed to determine a firm's experience in and knowledge of 
developing secure electronic commerce.  RFQ, Evaluation of Technical 
Proposal and Price Quotation, at 2.  This criterion clearly relates to 
the statement of work, which provides that one of DOI's objectives is 
to:

     [a]llow employees and customers to conduct various on-line 
     business activities through Internet/Intranet interfacing of 
     programs such as time and attendance, services and supplies, 
     requisitions, training registration, contracting and bidding 
     opportunities, as well as computer modeling and operation and 
     maintenance activities.

RFQ, Statement of Work, at 1.  Since experience and knowledge in the 
area of developing electronic commerce capabilities will be relevant 
to an offeror's ability to accomplish this aspect of the requirement, 
there is nothing unreasonable in the agency's adoption of a criterion 
to assess proposals in this area.

The statement of work also encompasses requirements that relate 
specifically to the evaluation criterion relating to experience and 
knowledge in web-based security.  The RFQ states that another of the 
agency's objectives is to "[p]rovide the Region with a secured, 
cohesive, and integrated approach to developing shared information in 
a highly-vulnerable and rapidly changing technology-based 
environment."  Id.  Additionally, the RFQ requires that all work 
performed under the contract be in accordance with the requirements of 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, which contains 
detailed procedures and requirements relating to maintaining security 
for all federal automated information resources.  OMB Circular A-130, 
Appendix III.  In light of these requirements and the central purpose 
of the RFQ--evaluating and upgrading the agency's Internet/Intranet 
system--the evaluation criterion for this area clearly relates to the 
agency's needs, and thus is proper.[1]

Borders's more general objection that the evaluation criteria are 
designed to favor the awardee under the earlier solicitation also is 
without merit.  Borders does not assert, except as discussed above, 
that the evaluation scheme fails to reflect the agency's actual 
requirements, and we have found that the criteria Borders does 
challenge are unobjectionable.  Consequently, even if the current RFQ 
favors the awardee under the prior RFQ, this fact is immaterial, since 
the current RFQ embodies the agency's actual requirements.  Madison 
Servs., Inc., supra.                                        

Borders asserts that the agency improperly has permitted evaluators 
who participated in the prior source selection to develop the 
evaluation criteria for the current solicitation, and will permit 
these same individuals to evaluate the quotations submitted under this 
RFQ.  The protester maintains that the participation of these 
individuals will taint the award process because they are biased in 
favor of the prior awardee.  

This argument is without merit because the premise on which it is 
based is incorrect.  As discussed above, the RFQ's evaluation 
criteria, on their face, are related to DOI's requirements, and thus 
are unobjectionable.  Borders has submitted no evidence to support its 
bald assertion that the drafters of the criteria designed them to 
competitively harm the protester rather than simply to evaluate 
proposals against the agency's requirements.  Thus, there is no basis 
to find that the solicitation drafters acted improperly and, 
accordingly, there is no basis to exclude them from the evaluation 
process.  As for the possibility that the evaluators will act in a 
manner harmful to Borders in evaluating its proposal, Borders's 
protest is speculative and anticipates improper agency action that has 
not occurred.  Its protest in this respect therefore is premature.  
VSE Corp.--Recon. and Entitlement to Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4, 
Dec. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  260 at 2.

Borders raises numerous other protest grounds that relate to the 
propriety of the agency's actions and the terms of the RFQ that 
involve primarily the procedural adequacy of the acquisition.  We have 
reviewed all of Borders's assertions and find them to be without 
merit.  For example, Borders asserts that the agency failed to 
synopsize the current RFQ in the Commerce Business Daily.  However, 
since Borders is well aware of the solicitation and apparently intends 
to submit a quote, we fail to understand how this is harmful to 
Borders.  Absent prejudice, there is no basis to sustain the protest.  
Geonex Corp., B-274390.2, June 13, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  225 at 4-5.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. In a related assertion, Borders maintains that the RFQ improperly 
fails to disclose how technical scores will be assigned.  This 
assertion is without merit; agencies are required to disclose the 
evaluation criteria and their relative importance, but need not state 
in the solicitation the rating method to be employed in evaluating 
proposals.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.304(d).  The RFQ 
states the relative weights of the evaluation factors, as required.