TITLE:  REEP, Inc., B-290688, September 20, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290688
DATE:  September 20, 2002
**********************************************************************
REEP, Inc., B-290688, September 20, 2002

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   REEP, Inc.
    
File:            B-290688
    
Date:              September 20, 2002
    
Gilbert J. Ginsburg, Esq., for the protester.
Lt. Col. Daniel K. Poling, Department of the Army, 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
    
Protester's argument that another firm has an impermissible conflict of
interest, and thus should be precluded from competing under solicitation,
is dismissed as premature where award has not yet been made.
DECISION
    
REEP, Inc. protests the actions of the Department of the Army in
connection with its effort to obtain language training services under the
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) using request for quotations (RFQ) No.
DAKF23-02-Q-0059.  REEP principally maintains that another firm, Worldwide
Language Resources, Inc., has a conflict of interest, and that the agency
should preclude it from competing for its language training requirements.
    
We dismiss the protest.
    
The agency advises our Office that it has made no award decision in
connection with the acquisition.  This being the case, REEP's protest
merely anticipates what it considers improper action by the agency,
namely, award to Worldwide.  We recognize that it could be argued that the
failure to exclude a firm with an alleged conflict of interest from a
competition is a defect in a solicitation that should be challenged prior
to the submission of proposals or quotations.  See 4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(1)
(2002).  Solicitation provisions, however, are not generally the vehicle
for excluding firms with a conflict of interest from competing for award;
rather, conflicts are generally handled on a case-by-case basis without
public notice through the solicitation.  Moreover, treating protests such
as this one as premature may avoid unnecessary litigation, since the
allegedly conflicted firm may not be the eventual awardee, either because
it loses the competition or because the agency ultimately concludes that
the firm has an impermissible conflict of interest.  See Saturn
Indus.--Recon., B-261954.4, July 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD P: 25 at 5.  Unless
the firm with the alleged conflict of interest is actually selected for
award, the protester has not suffered any competitive prejudice; we will
not sustain a protest absent a showing of such prejudice. 
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P: 54 at 3; see
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3 d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
    
The protest is dismissed.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel