TITLE: B-299723, Forensic Quality Services-International, May 23, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299723
DATE: May 23, 2007
***************************************************************
B-299723, Forensic Quality Services-International, May 23, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Forensic Quality Services-International

   File: B-299723

   Date: May 23, 2007

   Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., Sean P. Bamford,
   Esq., and Heather Kilgore Weiner, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, for the
   protester.

   Jerry S. Hiett, Sr., Esq., Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the
   agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest against sole-source award from protester who also submitted a
   timely expression of interest to the procuring agency's presolicitation
   notice of intent to conduct a sole-source procurement is premature where
   the agency has not rejected the protester's response nor determined to
   proceed with the sole-source procurement.

   DECISION

   Forensic Quality Services-International protests the Federal Bureau of
   Investigation's proposed award of a sole-source contract for
   re-accreditation of the FBI Laboratory to the American Society of Crime
   Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) pursuant to
   presolicitation notice No. 07-Q-000444.

   We dismiss the protest.

   The presolicitation notice, published on the Federal Business
   Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website, announced the FBI's intent to award a
   sole-source contract to ASCLD/LAB for the acquisition of a certificate of
   re-accreditation for the FBI laboratory. Among other things, the
   presolicitation notice announced that "[a]ny firms desiring consideration
   must fully identify, in writing, their capabilities to perform the
   mandatory requirements addressed herein, including the government's time
   frame for accreditation to occur." The deadline for providing this
   information to the agency was April 25. Protest, exh. 3, Presolicitation
   Notice, at 2.

   Forensic submitted a timely response to the presolicitation notice but
   also filed this protest, challenging the propriety of the sole-source
   procurement, asserting among other things that the sole source has been
   affected by an organizational conflict of interest and overly restrictive
   requirements. In response, the FBI argues that the protest is premature
   since the agency has yet to review Forensic's submission, which would
   allow the agency to decide whether Forensic is capable of meeting its
   requirements, in which case the procurement would be competitive.

   Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, an agency may not award
   a contract using noncompetitive procedures, until it has publicized notice
   of the proposed noncompetitive award and all bids or proposals received in
   response to that notice have been considered by the agency. See 41 U.S.C.
   sect. 253(f)(1)(C) (2000). Consistent with this mandate, as a prerequisite
   to filing a protest against a sole-source procurement, a protester must
   have submitted a timely expression of interest in response to the
   published notice and the agency must have rejected its proposal and
   proceeded with the noncompetitive procurement. This rule provides an
   agency the opportunity to consider any expressions of interest from firms
   in order to decide whether to open a procurement to competition, while
   allowing only serious potential offerors to challenge the agency's
   sole-source decision. Consequently, we think a protest of a sole-source
   procurement where the agency has provided an opportunity for interested
   firms to submit an expression of interest is premature, and that the
   protester can protest the sole-source and related issues within 10 days of
   when it knows or should have known that its response was rejected and that
   the sole-source procurement is proceeding. See Bombadier, Inc., Canadair,
   Challenge Div., B-244328, Jun. 17, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 575 at 2; Keco
   Indus., Inc., B-238301, May 21, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 490 at 3.

   The protester does not dispute the applicability of this rule that "a
   protester generally must wait"[1] to its own circumstance, but asserts
   that we should treat its protest the same as one filed against an alleged
   solicitation impropriety apparent prior to the time set for receipt of
   proposals on the basis that the resolution of the OCI issue could impact
   such things as whether the agency could even contract with ASCLD/LAB and
   that this issue is inextricably intertwined with the agency's sole-source,
   and its objections to the propriety of that decision. We decline to take
   this approach because the agency is still in the process of considering
   how it will fulfill its requirements, based on the protester's expression
   of interest, and in doing so, it should consider the information brought
   to its attention concerning the possibility of an OCI and allegations
   concerning the allegedly overly restrictive requirements in making that
   decision. Until that process has run its course, we find no reason to
   apply an exception to the rule.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary A. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] We have recognized that there may be cases where it is clear that an
   agency is so firmly committed to a sole-source procurement that it would
   be futile for a protester to first file an expression of interest with the
   agency; however, the agency here has represented that it is reviewing the
   merits of Forensic's expression of interest. Keco Indus., Inc., supra, at
   3 n.1.