TITLE:  Champion Business Services, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-290556 
DATE:  June 25, 2002
**********************************************************************
Champion Business Services, Inc., B-290556, June 25, 2002

Decision

Matter of:   Champion Business Services, Inc.

File:            B-290556

Date:              June 25, 2002

Carol E. McCallister, Champion Business Services, Inc., for the protester.
William L. Mayers, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency acted improperly in determining that protester was
qualified to make an oral presentation even though it had no chance for
award, and request for reimbursement of oral presentation costs, does not
come within GAO's bid protest jurisdiction and is dismissed.

DECISION

Champion Business Services, Inc. protests the actions of the Defense
Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology Contracting
Organization (DISA/DITCO), under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DCA200-01-R-5032, for global enterprise management support services.
Champion maintains that the agency improperly retained its proposal in the
competition after it became evident that Champion had no reasonable chance
of receiving award.

We dismiss the protest.

The RFP provided for award of multiple
indefinite?delivery/indefinite?quantity, task order contracts to small
business concerns.  The agency intended to reserve at least one award for a
qualified section 8(a) program concern and one award for a qualified
Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) offeror.  Award was to be
made to offerors submitting the most highly rated proposals.  The RFP
provided for proposals to be evaluated under three evaluation factors,
including past performance, technical/management, and cost/price.  The RFP
further provided for offerors (1) to submit a written volume containing
cost/price information and contract information, including presentation
slides for a subsequent oral presentation, and (2) to make an oral
presentation addressing the offeror's past performance and
technical/management approach (as well as furnishing an executive summary
describing the significant attributes of its proposal).  Forty?two proposals
were received; 35 offerors, including the protester, made an oral
presentation.  Four awards were made; Champion, whose proposal was ranked
35th out of 35 proposals overall, and 17th out of 17 section 8(a) proposals,
did not receive an award.

Champion asserts that the agency acted improperly in retaining its proposal
in the competition and determining that it was qualified to make an oral
presentation, since it was clear from the evaluation results that it had no
chance for award.  Champion requests reimbursement of its costs with respect
to the oral presentation.

Champion's protest does not come within our bid protest jurisdiction.  The
jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of
the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3551-3556 (2000).
In this regard, our Office considers bid protest challenges to a
solicitation or other request by a federal agency for offers for a contract
for the procurement of property or services; the cancellation of such a
solicitation or other request; an award or proposed award of such a
contract; or a termination of such a contract, if the protest alleges that
the termination was based on improprieties in the award of the contract.  31
U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3551(1), 3552; 4 C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.1(a) (2002).  In the event that we
determine that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with
statute or regulation, we may recommend that the contracting agency pay the
protester its costs of bid and proposal preparation.  31 U.S.C.
ï¿½ 3554(c)(1)(B); 4 C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.8(d).

Champion's claim that it was improperly invited to make an oral presentation
is not a challenge to a solicitation or other request for offers, the
cancellation of such a solicitation or other request, an award or proposed
award of a contract, or the termination of a contract based on improprieties
in the award of the contract.  It therefore does not come within the scope
of our bid protest jurisdiction.  31 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3551(1), 3552; 4 C.F.R. ï¿½
21.1(a).  We recognize that we have previously considered a protester's
assertion that its proposal should not have been included in the competitive
range.  See, e.g., Global Indus. Servs., Inc., B?260287.2, July 18, 1995,
95-2 CPD ï¿½ 27 at 2; Avondale Tech. Servs., Inc., B-243330, July 18, 1991,
91?2 CPD ï¿½ 72 at 3.  To the extent that those prior decisions are
inconsistent with our ruling here, we will no longer follow our prior
decisions in this regard.

Finally, since Champion's protest furnishes no basis for determining that a
solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with statute or
regulation, there is no basis for recommending that DISA/DITCO reimburse the
protester its costs associated with the oral presentation.  31 U.S.C.
ï¿½ 3554(c)(1)(B); 4 C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.8(d).

The protest is dismissed.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel