TITLE:  Government Business Services Group, B-287052; B-287052.2; B-287052.3, March 27, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287052; B-287052.2; B-287052.3
DATE:  March 27, 2001
**********************************************************************
Government Business Services Group, B-287052; B-287052.2; B-287052.3, March
27, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Government Business Services Group

File: B-287052; B-287052.2; B-287052.3

Date: March 27, 2001

Michael A. Hordell, Esq., and Laura L. Hoffman, Esq., Kilpatrick Stockton,
for the protester.

Drew A. Harker, Esq., and Mark E. DeWitt, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for US
Investigations Service, Inc., an intervenor.

Kathie Ann Whipple, Esq., and Sandra K. Scholar, Esq., Office of Personnel
Management, for the agency.

Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. General Accounting Office (GAO) will not review contention that
contracting agency is required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
to provide protester copies of certain operation manuals and processing
instructions the agency developed and placed in reading rooms for offerors
to review in connection with solicitation to acquire background
investigations services, because GAO has no authority under FOIA regarding
the release of documents in the possession of an agency. Protester must
pursue the remedy it seeks under the disclosure remedies of FOIA.

2. Allegation that solicitation's restriction on photocopying documents the
agency developed and placed in reading rooms for offerors to review is
unduly restrictive of competition is denied, where offerors were permitted
to view the documents at issue for at least 2 weeks prior to closing, and
when viewed together with the information the agency provided with the
solicitation, the agency provided sufficient information for offerors to
compete intelligently and on an equal basis.

3. Protest that offeror under solicitation for background investigation
services has an organizational conflict of interest that renders that firm
ineligible for award is dismissed as premature where contracting agency has
made no final determination regarding the status or eligibility of the
offeror.

DECISION

Government Business Services Group (GBSG) protests as unduly restrictive the
terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. OPM-00RFP-01025RDH, issued by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to acquire background investigations
and related support services. Specifically, the protester challenges the
provision in the RFP that does not allow offerors to photocopy or remove any
materials located at two reading rooms OPM established in connection with
the RFP. The protester argues that by preventing it from photocopying or
removing any of the materials from the reading rooms, OPM has placed GBSG at
a competitive disadvantage, and has improperly skewed the procurement in
favor of the incumbent, US Investigations Service, Inc. (USIS). In a
supplemental protest, GBSG also alleges that the relationship between OPM
and USIS has created an organizational conflict of interest which renders
USIS ineligible for award.

We deny the protests.

BACKGROUND

OPM's Investigation Service (IS) is responsible for conducting background
investigations to provide executive branch agencies and departments with
information upon which to make decisions involving the employability of
individuals in the federal civil service, including whether to grant
security clearances. Prior to 1994, OPM employees conducted these
investigations. In 1994, as part of an initiative to reinvent the federal
government, IS was identified as one of several federal programs to be
privatized. In 1995, OPM created USIS pursuant to an employee stock
ownership plan, made up primarily of former OPM employees who had previously
performed or supported IS's background investigations as OPM employees. OPM
then awarded USIS a sole-source contract to take over IS's background
investigation functions. [1] That contract is scheduled to expire in
July 2001. The procurement at issue here is to competitively acquire the
required background investigations and related support functions.

The RFP, issued October 15, 2000, contemplates the award of one or more
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts with fixed prices for each
of several types of background investigations and services required for a
2-year base period, with up to three 1-year option periods. Offerors are
required to submit separate technical and price proposals. The RFP divides
the work into two categories--investigations support and field
investigations. Investigations support is to be provided at the Federal
Investigations Processing Center (FIPC) in Boyers, PA, while field
investigations are to be conducted in all 50 states, Washington, D.C.,
Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. Trust
Territories. The RFP separately lists the specific investigations support
services and field work tasks. In addition, the RFP lists 62 different
deliverables as separate contract line item numbers (CLIN) and includes a
brief description and estimated quantities for each. Another attachment to
the solicitation, consisting of over 220 pages, summarizes the work involved
for each CLIN. The RFP states that the agency intends to award either
separate contracts for the field investigations or the investigations
support work, or one contract for all of the work combined. The RFP lists
technical and cost/price as evaluation factors; award is to be made on the
basis of the proposal deemed to offer the "best value" to the government.

In May 2000, while developing the RFP, OPM decided to compile detailed,
written processing instructions for the work performed at the FIPC. OPM
explains that it reached this decision to provide potential offerors with
additional information regarding what would be required at the FIPC, and
because a new contractor would ultimately require written, detailed, and
current instructions in order to successfully perform the contract. Agency
Report (AR), Feb. 5, 2001, at 6. During June and September 2000, before
issuing the solicitation, OPM compiled detailed written processing
instructions describing the work performed at the FIPC and covering all of
the work contemplated by the solicitation. Id. According to OPM, the result
of this effort consists of several volumes, referred to in the record as
either operations manuals or processing instructions, and comprises over
2,000 pages describing the day-to-day work processes at the FIPC.

OPM placed these documents in two reading rooms--one located at the FIPC
facility in Boyers, PA, and the other at OPM's headquarters in Washington,
D.C. The RFP states that "[a] reading room will be provided for interested
offerors to view reference materials associated with performing background
investigations." RFP at 2. Potential offerors could view the materials in
the reading room located at OPM's headquarters by appointment each work day
from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., for approximately 2 weeks from October 23 through
November 3, 2000. The Boyers reading room was available during a site visit
to the FIPC facility. Visitors to the reading rooms were required to sign a
"Reading Room Acknowledgement of Conditions" form which states:

I [name] of [organization/company] hereby acknowledge that I understand that
I may view and take notes of all the information in the Background
Investigations Reading Room. I also understand that I may not remove any
pages, may not copy, may not take pictures, or otherwise reproduce any of
the documents in the Background Investigations Reading Room. AR exh. A.

GBSG contends that the RFP's restriction on photocopying the materials in
the reading rooms is unduly restrictive. In this connection, the protester
primarily argues that the restriction places it at a competitive
disadvantage because it is unable to review and analyze the information
contained in the reading room materials at its own facility in order to
develop process flow sheets, quality control procedures, and cost estimates,
which would then form the basis for preparing its technical and price
proposal. GBSG argues that without conducting this extensive review at its
own facility, it cannot develop an adequate response to the RFP. In
addition, GBSG argues that by restricting review of the documents to only
those times specified in the RFP, OPM ensures that USIS will be the only
firm that can meet the RFP's requirements.

The agency takes the position that, although a new contractor could find the
materials useful during contract performance, offerors do not need the
reading room documents to prepare proposals. In this regard, OPM explains
that the documents in the reading rooms include operating procedures,
internal guidelines and techniques for conducting background investigations,
and OPM's suitability adjudication procedures. They also contain operational
materials for OPM's Personnel Information Processing System (PIPS) computer
system, information identifying responsibilities of the National Security
Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), procedures for
handling and mailing classified information, and procedures for transporting
sensitive information. The agency states that it developed these materials
and placed them in the reading rooms, not because they are essential or even
helpful in preparing a competitive proposal, but to provide offerors with a
better understanding of the complexity and magnitude of the RFP's
requirements. OPM further states that the information it provided with the
solicitation was sufficient for offerors to respond to the RFP's core
requirements.

With respect to the challenged restriction on photocopying these documents,
OPM states that the release of these materials to the general public, or
even a limited disclosure without any control over subsequent dissemination,
could give any applicant for a federal position, a political appointee, or
current federal employee, sensitive information which could be used to
circumvent the investigative process. According to OPM, therefore, unlimited
and unrestricted access to the materials outside the reading rooms,
including photocopying, poses an unacceptable risk to national security and
could jeopardize the integrity of the federal workforce.

DISCUSSION

The parties rely on various provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. sect. 552 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998), and decisions interpreting
those provisions, to argue their respective positions. Specifically, OPM
relies on exemption 2 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. sect. 552(b)(2), which exempts from
mandatory disclosure records that are "related solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of an agency," and exemption 7(E), 5 U.S.C. sect.
552(b)(7)(E), which affords protection to law enforcement information that
"would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations
or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention of the law," to argue that the materials are
exempt from mandatory disclosure.

GBSG disagrees with the agency's position. The protester asserts that the
fact that potential offerors may view and take notes on the documents in the
reading rooms, means that OPM has disclosed those documents to the general
public. GBSG asserts that, since the RFP imposes no restrictions on the
subsequent release of any information after offerors review the materials,
OPM essentially has disclosed them to the public, thus waiving any FOIA
exemption. GBSG further maintains that, contrary to OPM's position, FOIA
does not provide for limited disclosure. According to GBSG, "either
information may be disclosed and copied, or it cannot be disclosed at all."
Comments, Feb. 7, 2001, at 7. In sum, GBSG concludes that there is no reason
to prohibit offerors from copying the reading room documents.

While the arguments advanced by OPM and GBSG based on FOIA principles
provide insight into the parties' opposing positions in this protest, our
Office has no authority under FOIA regarding the release of documents in the
possession of an agency. All Am. Moving and Storage, B-243630, B-243804,
July 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 32 at 2 n.1; Colbar, Inc., B-227555.4, Feb. 19,
1988, 88-1 CPD para. 168 at 5-6; Government Sys. Integration Corp., B-227065,
Aug. 7, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 137 at 4-5. Thus, to the extent that GBSG relies on
FOIA to argue that OPM is required to allow the firm to copy the reading
room documents, the protester must pursue the remedy it seeks under the
disclosure remedies of the Act. See Facilities Management, Inc., B-247698.2,
Apr. 24, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 394 at 3; Employment Perspectives, B-218338, June
24, 1985, 85-1 CPD para. 715 at 7.

Although we will not resolve the parties' dispute concerning whether the
agency has a legal obligation to release the reading documents under FOIA,
we review the agency's actions here pursuant to the authority established by
the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984
(CICA), 31 U.S.C. sect.sect. 3551-56 (Supp. IV 1998). Pursuant to that authority,
our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory
requirements for full and open competition are met. Brown Assocs. Management
Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-235906.3, Mar. 16, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 299 at 4.

General Nature of the Reading Room Documents

Our Office conducted a hearing in this matter to obtain testimony from
knowledgeable individuals from OPM and GBSG, to clarify the record with
respect to the nature and contents of the reading room documents. In
particular, the witnesses addressed whether and to what extent the reading
room documents are necessary to prepare competitive proposals. OPM witnesses
also addressed whether and to what extent USIS may have had access to the
information contained in the reading room documents, while other offerors
did not have similar access to that information.

As a preliminary matter, the record shows that the materials OPM developed
for this solicitation and placed in the reading rooms are relevant to
preparing proposals. In this connection, we note that in addition to listing
the specific work requirements as described below, the solicitation states
that:

All services provided must be in accordance with processing instructions
contained in the form of operations manuals, the OPM-IS Investigator's
Handbook, OPM-IS Security Manual, and the OPM-IS Adjudicator's Handbook.
These are available for reference and review [in the reading rooms].
Additional guidance is contained in Work Requirements (Attach. 2).

Id. sect. C.1 (emphasis added).

In addition, in response to our Office's request, OPM provided a random
sampling of the documents at issue, along with an index of the documents in
the reading rooms and a brief description of each, for our in camera review.
That index and the random sampling of the documents OPM provided show that
the materials in the reading rooms include the items referenced in sect. C.1 of
the RFP, including OPM's "Investigator's Handbook," the "[PIPS] User's
Manual," OPM's "Security Manual," and a "National Industrial Security
Program Operating Manual," to name a few. The index also lists additional
documents such as an operational manual for computer support and processing
incoming/outgoing mail (including classified materials) and for handling
miscellaneous investigative products; operational manuals for processing,
filing, and controlling various investigative products; and manuals for
reviewing and processing investigative products, including FOIA requests.

At the hearing, the Assistant Director for Operations for OPM's IS in Boyers
generally described the information contained in the reading rooms as
including the "‘how to' and ‘what if' guidelines for dealing
with specific requests for investigation." Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at
25-26, 34. During her testimony, the Assistant Director summarized each of
the numerous reading room documents in greater detail, ranging from
describing specific mail room processes, handling classified correspondence,
converting requests for investigations into data for OPM's automated
processing system, filing and controlling investigative products,
instructions for dealing with pending investigations, to providing guidance
for field investigators and setting forth OPM's policies and procedures
related to computer security. See, e.g., Tr. at 25-33. In our opinion, the
record is clear that the operations manuals and processing instructions
describe procedures and closely track virtually every material aspect of
contract performance. [2]

The RFP states as follows with respect to the evaluation of proposals:

The Government reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those
proposals submitted in accordance with all technical requirements set forth
or referenced in this solicitation and which demonstrate an understanding of
the problems involved and the scope of the project; and to reject as
unacceptable proposals deleting or altering technical requirements which are
considered by the Government not to be beyond the state of the art or
impossible of attainment.

RFP sect. M.3, amend. No. 003.

In our view, on its face, the RFP contradicts OPM's assertion that the
reading room materials are not necessary to preparing competitive proposals.
By its terms, the RFP specifically requires that all of the contemplated
services be provided in accordance with the operations manuals and
processing instructions specifically referenced in the RFP. The RFP states,
and the index shows, that these are the very same manuals that OPM developed
in connection with this acquisition and made available to all offerors in
the reading rooms.

The testimony at the hearing provides further support for our conclusion
that the reading room documents contain the type of information relevant to
preparing proposals. In this regard, OPM's witness's description of the
manuals and instructions supports a conclusion that they describe and
closely track each of the work requirements listed in the RFP. In fact, the
witness testified that one of the primary purposes of compiling the reading
room materials was that OPM believed it was important to provide sufficient
information to ensure that the successful offeror could "hit the ground
running" in perfoming the required work. Tr. at 34, 68. Further, section M
of the RFP makes clear that OPM intends to consider as technically
acceptable only those proposals "submitted in accordance with all technical
requirements set forth or referenced" in the RFP, and which demonstrate an
understanding of the problems involved and the scope of the project.

While an offeror experienced in conducting background investigations may be
familiar with standard methods and generally accepted procedures used in
conducting background investigations, it is clear that an offeror would risk
having its proposal rejected as technically unacceptable if it did not
explain how its proposed approach follows the specific procedures set forth
in the reading room materials. In view of the magnitude and relative
complexity of the RFP's requirements, which OPM does not dispute, and given
the criteria by which OPM intends to evaluate responses and determine a
proposal's technical acceptability, we conclude that OPM's position that the
reading room documents are not necessary or even helpful in preparing
competitive proposals, is not supported by the record.

We next turn to GBSG's central arguments that the RFP's restrictions on
photocopying the documents placed it at a competitive disadavantage, and
that USIS has had access to the materials at issue outside the reading
rooms.

Competitive Disadvantage

Generally, an agency must ensure that it provides enough information through
the solicitation or otherwise to allow offerors to compete intelligently and
on relatively equal terms. See Holmes & Narver Servs., Inc., B-242240, Apr.
15, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 373 at 4. It is not unusual for contracting agencies to
establish reading rooms for offerors where there is voluminous information
that may be relevant to the agency's requirements and is not practicable to
include with a solicitation. See, e.g., Sprint Communications Corp., L.P.,
B-271035, B-271035.2, June 10, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 40; Textron Marine Sys.,
B-255580.3, Aug. 2, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 63; Hadson Defense Sys., Inc.; Research
Dev. Labs., B-244522, B-244522.2, Oct. 24, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 368; Technology
Concepts and Design, Inc., B-241727, Feb. 6, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 132.

Here, the record shows that the documents were available in the reading
rooms for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week, for about 2 weeks prior to closing.
Offerors also could request to have additional access to the reading rooms.
RFP amend. No. 001, Q1. Although they were not allowed to photocopy or
remove the documents from the reading rooms, it is undisputed that offerors
could view the materials and take any notes deemed necessary to gaining an
understanding of the work requirements, including the specific procedures
and processes OPM requires for conducting the various types of
investigations covered by the RFP.

In addition to the reading room materials, and in an effort to provide
offerors with additional information, OPM created a document that identified
the work involved for each of the RFP's 62 CLINs. OPM issued this document
as an RFP amendment. See RFP amend. No. 002, Nov. 11, 2000, Work
Requirements. In addition, the agency conducted a pre-proposal conference to
provide potential offerors with an opportunity to raise questions concerning
the solicitation. Before the pre-proposal conference, OPM received and
responded to numerous written questions, and issued amendments to the RFP to
communicate the questions and answers to all potential offerors. See RFP
amend. No. 003, Dec. 1, 2000. Some of the items in that amendment include
revised RFP sections L and M, a revised exhibit which had been previously
provided as part of amendment No. 002, a copy of the transcript of the
pre-proposal conference, and an updated wage determination. In addition, OPM
amended the RFP to include a copy of USIS's current contract, including
several modifications. See RFP amend. No. 005, Dec. 18, 2000. OPM also
conducted escorted site visits of the FIPC facility in Boyers. During that
site visit, OPM officials responded to approximately 122 questions, which
were recorded and provided as an exhibit to the RFP. RFP amend. No. 002,
exh. 10.

We recognize that, given the sheer volume of information contained in the
operation manuals and processing instructions, and the magnitude and
complexity of the work requirements, the RFP's restriction on photocopying
the reading room materials may cause some inconvenience to offerors, such as
GBSG, which prefer to review the reading room documents at their own
facilities at their own times. However, at no time during their testimony
did the protester's witnesses testify that the reading room materials are
incomplete or otherwise do not contain sufficient information for GBSG to
gain a full understanding of the RFP's requirements or prepare an
intelligently-written, competitive proposal. Rather, the crux of GBSG's
witnesses' testimony was that the RFP's restrictions make it somewhat
difficult to develop a proposal, because offerors are required to compare
information from the various manuals and relate it to the RFP's
requirements. To the extent that GBSG argues that this arrangement is
cumbersome, all offerors were equally inconvenienced.

The fact that GBSG is faced with what it considers to be an inefficient or
cumbersome task does not compel a conclusion that the agency's approach is
unduly restrictive. It is undisputed that offerors could view the materials
in the reading room located at OPM's headquarters for up to 5 hours per day,
5 days per week, for approximately 2 weeks prior to closing at one reading
room, and during the week of the site visit at the FIPC facility. The record
thus shows that offerors had access to the materials for about 75 hours,
during which they could review the documents and take any notes they deemed
necessary to prepare their responses to the RFP. Offerors were also given
separate opportunities to ask questions, both in writing and orally, and OPM
responded to those questions and amended the RFP where necessary to address
issues raised by those questions.

Further, as noted above, the limitation on dissemination was prompted by
OPM's concern that making the materials publicly available could compromise
background investigations, and thereby jeoparize national security. Based on
OPM's description of the reading room materials, together with our review of
the sampling of documents OPM provided to our Office, we think that the
agency's concern is not unreasonable. In our view, the agency's approach
strikes a reasonable balance between preventing the unlimited dissemination
of what it considers sensitive documents while providing sufficient
information to maximize competition. See, e.g., National Airmotive Corp.,
B-280194, Sept. 4, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 60 at 10 (where, in a different context,
we found that when legitimate national security concerns are weighed against
interests in maximizing competition, the scales must tip towards national
security).

Incumbent's Alleged Improper Access to Reading Room Materials

GBSG next contends that, since one of the reading rooms is located at the
FIPC facility in Boyers, at the same location where USIS has been performing
its current contract, USIS has had "ready access" to the reading room
materials, while other offerors have not. According to GBSG, this gives USIS
an unfair competitive advantage. GBSG also maintains that USIS has access to
documents not in the reading rooms that are useful in preparing its
proposal. [3]

The agency responds that no potential offeror was denied an appointment
request, and none was permitted additional viewing time beyond those
established in the RFP and reading room guidelines. GBSG incorrectly assumes
that by virtue of USIS's location, OPM provided USIS access to the reading
room documents not provided other offerors. There is no evidence showing
that any offeror, including USIS, was provided any additional access to the
reading rooms not available to all offerors.

GBSG also claims that as a result of performing the current contract, USIS
has access to other documents that might be useful in preparing its
proposal. OPM responds that certain USIS employees have access to OPM's
investigator's handbook, the PIPS security manual, and portions of other
operation manuals USIS requires to perform the current contract. AR at 15.
OPM's Assistant Director for Operations testified, however, that, while USIS
may have had "bits and pieces" of some of the information that was
incorporated in the reading room materials, USIS did not have all of the
reading room materials or in the same format, because not all of those
documents were necessary for USIS to perform under its current contract. Tr.
at 45-46.

A particular offeror may possess unique advantages and capabilities due to
its prior experience under a government contract or otherwise and the
government is not required to attempt to equalize competition to compensate
for it, unless there is evidence of preferential treatment or other improper
action. Crux Computer Corp., B-234143, May 3, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 422 at 5;
Halifax Eng'g, Inc., B-219178.2, Sept. 30, 1985, 85-2 CPD para. 559 at 3. Our
decisions have long held that this advantage is neither preferential
treatment by the agency, nor otherwise an unfair competitive advantage. See,
e.g., B.B Saxon Co., Inc., B-190505, June 1, 1978, 78-1 CPD para. 410 at 20
(incumbent's possession of required equipment by virtue of performing its
contract was not evidence of unfair competitive advantage which the
government was required to equalize); Crux Computer Corp., supra
(development of a system under prior agency contract is not evidence of
preferential treatment in subsequent competition for the system); H. J.
Hansen Co., B-181543, Mar. 28, 1975, 75-1 CPD para. 187 at 7-8 (contract for
preliminary study which in effect financed the contractor's competitive
advantage was not evidence of unfair advantage for succeeding sole-source
contract).

We have no basis on which to conclude that OPM has demonstrated a preference
for the incumbent or acted unfairly so as to favor that firm, such that OPM
was required to equalize any competitive advantage that USIS may enjoy.
While USIS may have in its possession some of the information that formed
the basis for OPM to develop the materials at issue, it is clear that any
advantage USIS may have derives from its performance on the current
contract, and its familiarity with OPM's requirements, not from any improper
or unfair agency action. Such an advantage is often enjoyed by incumbents
and is not unfair, since it does not result from preferential treatment or
other unfair action by the agency. See LaQue Ctr. for Corrosion Tech., Inc.,
B-245296, Dec. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 577 at 6-7; Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Inst., Inc., B-243417, July 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 67 at 5.

Organizational Conflict of Interest

In a supplemental protest, GBSG argues, based on statements in the agency
report in response to its initial protest, that USIS allegedly has an
unavoidable organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that renders the firm
ineligible for award. GBSG points out that in its report to our Office, OPM
states that it decided to compile the reading room documents, in part,
because "OPM had to refamiliarize itself with the relevant processes in
order to review the instructions prepared by the currenct contractor and put
them in an OPM format." AR at 6. GBSG maintains that considering that OPM
has had limited resources at the FIPC facility, the record suggests that OPM
met with USIS representatives to discuss where the procedures were lacking
or required updating. GBSG thus contends, upon "information and belief,"
that USIS provided "significant input to OPM as to the development of the
various materials utilized in the development of the solicitation at issue
and the documents provided in the reading room." The protester maintains
that OPM's relationship with USIS created an impermissible OCI, whereby USIS
was in a position to favor its own capabilities in this procurement.
Comments, Feb. 14, 2001, at 5.

An OCI occurs where, because of other activities or relationships with other
persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial
assistance or advice to the government, or the person's objectivity in
performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person
has an unfair competitive advantage. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
sect. 9.501; International Management and Communications Corp., B-272456, Oct.
23, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 156 at 3; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.; Foundation
Health Fed. Servs., Inc., B-254397.15 et al., July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 129
at 12. Contracting officials are to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate potential
significant conflicts of interest before contract award, so as to prevent an
unfair competitive advantage or the existence of conflicting roles that
might impair a contractor's objectivity. FAR sect.sect. 9.504(a), 9.505; CH2M Hill,
Ltd., B-259511 et al., Apr. 6, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 203 at 14. The regulations
further provide that any general rule or procedure of FAR Subpart 9.5 may be
waived where its application would not be in the government's interest. FAR
sect. 9.503.

In response to this allegation, OPM advises that it has not determined
USIS's status or eligibility for award. Furthermore, we note that even if
OPM were to conclude that USIS has an OCI, the agency may find that
excluding the firm from the competition is not required, or OPM could waive
USIS's OCI under the authority of FAR sect. 9.503. Under the circumstances, we
conclude that, since OPM has not made a final determination concerning the
OCI issue, this allegation is premature and will not be reviewed at this
time. [4] Price Bros. Co., B-235473, June 9, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 549 at 3.

The protests are denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The sole source award to USIS was unsuccessfully challenged in district
court. Varicom Int'l v. Office of Personnel Management, 934 F.Supp. 440
(D.D.C. 1996).

2. The RFP specifically references the "OPM-IS Adjudicator's Handbook." The
Assistant Director testified, however, that this document was a supplement
to the Federal Personnel Manual, and is no longer in effect, but that
relevant portions still applicable were extracted and included either in the
work requirements or in another volume in the reading rooms. Tr. at 40.

3. GBSG also asserts that OPM should extend the due date for receipt of
proposals. Where a protester contends that the agency allowed insufficient
time for the preparation of proposals, we require a showing that the time
allowed violated statutory requirements, or was otherwise unreasonable or
insufficient, or that it precluded full and open competition. See Cajar
Defense Support Co., B-240477, Aug. 3, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 100 at 2. GBSG has
made no such showing here.

4. In its post-hearing comments, GBSG argues that, since the agency is in
the process of evaluating proposals, the OCI issue is not premature. The
fact that OPM is evaluating proposals, however, does not by itself compel a
conclusion that OPM has made a determination concerning USIS's eligibility
for award. GBSG also argues that based on responses to questions raised
during the hearing, OPM failed to conduct a market survey prior to issuing
the solicitation. With respect to this issue, a protester has a duty to
diligently pursue information that reasonably would be expected to reveal
any additional grounds of protest. Sun Enters., B-221438.2, Apr. 18, 1986,
86-1 CPD para. 384 at 4; S.A.F.E. Export Corp., B-213026, Feb. 10, 1984, 84-1
CPD para. 165 at 3. Moreover, the diligent pursuit of additional grounds of
protest is a continuing obligation of the protester while its initial
protest is pending. Textron Marine Sys., supra, at 22. In light of our
interests in minimizing the disruption to the procurement process while
giving protesters a reasonable opportunity to present their cases, the
protest process cannot be governed by a protester's fortuitous discovery of
new information during a hearing which it could have easily discovered
earlier in the process. Accordingly, we do not consider GBSG's waiting until
the hearing on GBSG's initial protest to inquire whether OPM conducted a
market survey to constitute diligent pursuit, and will not consider this
basis of protest.