TITLE:  DuRette Construction Company, Inc., B-294379, September 15, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294379
DATE:  September 15, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   DuRette Construction Company, Inc.

   File:            B-294379

   Date:              September 15, 2004

   Rob DuRette, DuRette Construction Company, Inc., for the protester.

   Byron W. Waters, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, for the agency.

   Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Although agency apparently disclosed potential proposal revision involving
cost savings through use of smaller concrete blocks in construction
project, which had been raised by protester during discussions, when
conducting subsequent discussions with other competitors, even assuming
that this disclosure was improper, the protester did not show competitive
prejudice where neither protester nor awardee revised its proposal to
utilize smaller concrete blocks.

   DECISION

   DuRette Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Southeast Road Builders, Inc. for construction of the Thorne Bay Marine
Access Facility (MAF) project, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
R10-05-04-34.  DuRette argues that an innovative approach to performance,
involving the use of smaller precast contract blocks in construction of
the seawall bulkhead, was improperly disclosed to the awardee during
discussions. 

   We deny the protest.

   The Thorne Bay MAF is to be used for the transfer, sorting, and loading of
logs onto barges for shipment from the Tongass National Forest.  A portion
of the project specifications required the construction of a seawall
bulkhead using precast concrete blocks, described on accompanying
drawings.  RFP amend. 2 (drawing sheet 17 of 19). 

   The parties agree that, during discussions, the protester suggested the
possibility of savings through the use of smaller concrete blocks.  The
agency considered this suggestion and determined that it could be
acceptable.  It then held subsequent discussions in which the agency
concedes that the "CO [contracting officer] apparently raised the block
size issue with the other offerors as part of the discussions seeking cost
savings in the precast concrete portion of the Project."  Memorandum of
Law at 302.[1] 

   The protester contends that the use of the smaller sized block was one of
unique innovation that should not have been disclosed to other offerors
during discussions.  The agency contends that use of the small block size
involved a change in the specifications that the agency was required to
communicate to the other competitors in order to uphold fair competition. 
It is not necessary to resolve this dispute, however; if the protester is
correct, it has nonetheless failed to demonstrate competitive prejudice. 

   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. 
McDonalda**Bradley, Ba**270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96a**1 CPD PA 54 at 3; see
Statistica, Inc., v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   Even assuming that the disclosure were improper, the agency argues that
the protester suffered no prejudice because both the protester's initial
and final proposals are based on using the concrete block sizes described
in the RFP, not the smaller block sizes that the protester mentioned
during discussions.  Memorandum of Law at 305-06.  The agency also submits
that the awardee, similarly, did not propose the use of smaller concrete
blocks in either its original or revised proposals.  Id. at 305.  Thus the
agency's actions in disclosing to other competitors the possibility of
cost savings through the use of smaller concrete blocks had no effect on
the protester's chance of receiving the award; had no disclosure occurred,
the protester still would not have received the award. 

   In its comments, the protester does not challenge these facts or otherwise
demonstrate prejudice.  Competitive prejudice is an essential element of
every viable protest, and even where an agency's actions may arguably have
been improper, we

   will not sustain a protest where the record does not reflect that the
protester was prejudiced.  Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., Ba**292077.2,
Sept. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD P 157 at 7. 

   ------------------------

   [1] Pages of the agency report were numbered sequentially.  The memorandum
of law began at page 301.