MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION GRANTED;
         DECISION AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION: November 2, 1993
                                                                
 
 
                            GSBCA 10750-P-R
 
                   INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, INC.,
 
                                                     Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                     Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
              INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION,
 
                                                     Intervenor.
 
        William L. Walsh,  Jr., Thomas J.  Madden, J. Scott  Hommer,
   III,  and Wm.  Craig  Dubishar of  Venable,  Baetjer and  Howard,
   McLean, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Harvey J. Nathan, Robert D. Hogue, and Naomi J. Miske, Space
   and  Naval Warfare  Systems  Command,  Department  of  the  Navy,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Pamela J. Mazza and Andrew  P. Hallowell of Piliero, Tobin &
   Mazza, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges LaBELLA and WILLIAMS.[foot #] 1
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1  This case  was originally decided by a  panel of
   three  judges,  Judges Suchanek,  LaBella, and  Williams.   Judge
   Suchanek  has  since  resigned  from the  Board.    Because  this
   decision involves reconsideration of the original opinion, no new
   judge has  been added to  the panel.  See  Universal Restoration,
                                         ___  ______________________
   Inc. v. United States, 798 F.2d 1400, 1406 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
   _____________________
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        On September 21, 1990, the Board denied Count 2 of a protest
   filed  by Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc. (ISA) challenging the
   Department of  the  Navy's  award  of a  contract  for  Shipboard
   Nontactical  ADP Program (SNAP) II systems to Information Systems
   & Networks  Corporation (ISN).   We concluded  that the  Navy had
   properly rejected ISA's  proposal as nonconforming  and dismissed
   the other seven counts of ISA's protest for lack of an interested
   party.  Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc., GSBCA 10750-P, et al.,
   91-1    BCA     23,383,   1990    BPD     298.[foot #] 2       On
   October 1, 1990, ISA asked that we reconsider that portion of our
   decision dismissing Count 3 of  the protest, in which ISA claimed
   that it  did not receive timely notice that its proposal had been
   rejected.  For the reasons set forth below, we grant ISA's motion
   for reconsideration.
 
                               Background
 
        The findings  pertinent to the  request for  reconsideration
   are  as  follows.[foot #] 3     In  the  procurement   at  issue,
   the Navy solicited SNAP II  systems.  These are  computer systems
   installed on  board Navy ships  and submarines  which provide  an
   automated data processing capability for maintenance, supply, and
   administrative matters.  The procurement was a 100% set aside for
   small and disadvantaged businesses (SDBs).
 
        Thirteen proposals  were evaluated and nine,  including that
   of ISA,  were determined  to  be in  the competitive  range.   On
   March 26, 1990, after receipt of  best and final offers, the Navy
   issued Amendment 005 to the solicitation, requesting the offerors
   to  update  their  proposals  by  March 29,  1990.    The  letter
   accompanying this amendment  specified:  "It is  the Government's
   intention  to award  a  contract  on the  basis  of these  offers
   without further discussion."   Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc.,
   91-1  BCA at  117,344, 1990 BPD    298, at 7.   Revised proposals
   were  received from  the remaining  offerors  in the  competitive
   range on March 29.
 
        On April 6,  1990, the Navy notified ISA  and other offerors
   in  the  competitive  range  that  Systems  Management   American
   Corporation  (SMA) was the  apparent successful offeror  and that
   challenges to the  SDB or  size status  of SMA could  be made  by
   April 13, 1990.   Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc.,  91-1 BCA at
   117,344-45, 1990 BPD   298, at 8-9.  Two protests as to SMA's SDB
   status  were   filed  and   forwarded  to   the  Small   Business
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2   Systems  Management American Corporation  (SMA)
   intervened  in ISA's  protest solely  on one  count not  in issue
   here.
 
        [foot #] 3  Because none of the Board's factual findings are
   challenged in the  motion for reconsideration, references  are to
   the   findings   in      Integrated   Systems   Analysts,   Inc.,
                            _______________________________________
   GSBCA 10750-P, et al., 91-1 BCA   23,383, 1990 BPD   298.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Administration (SBA).   On June 4, 1990,  the contracting officer
   determined SMA to be nonresponsible.
 
 
        With SMA's disqualification, the Navy concluded that ISA was
   next in  line for  award.  However,  the contracting  officer had
   previously  overlooked a cover letter to ISA's March 29 proposal.
   The contracting officer interpreted that cover letter to indicate
   that  ISA's  price was  conditioned  on its  substitution  of the
   unacceptable  Fujitsu disk  drive for  the  required Harris  disk
   drive.  Integrated  Systems Analysts, Inc., 91-1  BCA at 117,345-
   46,  1990 BPD    298, at  9-11.   Because  of this  condition, on
   approximately  July 12, 1990,  the Navy  concluded  that ISA  had
   submitted an  unacceptable offer.   Id. at  117,346-48, 1990  BPD
     298, at 12, 15.   However, the Navy  did not notify ISA of  its
   rejection at that time.  Rather, as the Board found:
 
        By  letter dated July  13, 1990, offerors  were advised
        that  ISN was the apparent successful offeror.  Protest
        File,    Exhibit 19.[[foot #] 4]       ISA   was    not
        notified that its proposal had been rejected due to the
        perceived  "condition"   concerning  the   disk  drive.
        Transcript  at 165.    Notwithstanding the  contracting
        officer's judgment that ISA's  offer was nonresponsive,
        ISA was asked to extend its offer twice after March 29,
        1990, once  in  May 1990  and again  on July 20,  1990,
        seeking an extension of ISA's proposal until August 31,
        1990.   Protest File,  Exhibits 36,  37; Transcript  at
        166.
 
   Id. at 117,348, 1990 BPD   298, at 15-16.
 
        By  letter  dated  July 20,  1990,  ISA,  through   counsel,
   protested to SBA  ISN's SDB status on the ground that ISN was not
   disadvantaged.  Protester's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion
   for Summary Disposition (Motion  for Reconsideration), Exhibit A;
   Protest File, Exhibit 38.   The Navy proceeded with  award to ISN
   despite the  SBA protests.   Integrated  Systems Analysts,  Inc.,
   91-1 BCA at 117,348, 1990 BPD   298, at 16.
 
        ISA protested  to this Board  the award to ISN,  raising the
   following eight grounds of protest.  In Count 1, ISA claimed that
   the  Navy evaluated ISN's  proposal based upon  lesser quantities
   than were specified in the solicitation and modified the delivery
   schedule in  making award to ISN, violating  the requirement that
   the agency amend the solicitation when changing its requirements.
   In Count  2, ISA  claimed that the  Navy improperly  rejected its
   proposal as nonresponsive.  In Count 3, ISA alleged that the Navy
   failed to notify it promptly that its proposal was ineligible for
   award.  In  Count 4, ISA contended  that the Navy's award  to ISN
   was invalid in that the Navy had  never called for a second round
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4  This  letter also notified ISA that  it had five
   days in which to file a protest against ISN's SDB status.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   of best and final offers  (BAFOs), had not obtained approval from
   the Source Selection  Authority for a  second request for  BAFOs,
   and awarded to  ISN based on its  response to Amendment 5  of the
   solicitation without closing discussions.
 
 
        In  Count 5, ISA  challenged the Navy's  communications with
   ISN, claiming that the Navy provided ISN information concerning a
   decrease   in  quantities,  inter  alia,  which  afforded  ISN  a
   competitive advantage  and constituted illegal  unequal treatment
   of offerors.   In  Count 6, ISA  claimed that  it was  denied the
   opportunity to clarify or meaningfully discuss  its proposal.  In
   Count 7, ISA  claimed that the Navy engaged  in illegal post-BAFO
   discussions with ISN.   In Count 8, ISA  alleged that the  Navy's
   decision to go  forward with the procurement despite the pendency
   of  two protests  at  the  SBA concerning  ISN's  SDB status  was
   erroneous.
 
        We  concluded that the Navy properly rejected ISA's proposal
   as not conforming to a  material requirement of the solicitation.
   We therefore denied  Count 2 of ISA's  protest and dismissed  the
   remainder of  its claims, including  Count 3, on the  ground that
   ISA was no longer  an interested party.   ISA is requesting  here
   that we  reconsider our  decision to  dismiss Count 3.   For  the
   reasons stated below, we grant reconsideration, conclude that ISA
   was an interested party for the purpose of raising that ground of
   protest, but dismiss the claim.
 
                               Discussion
 
        ISA argues that if ISA  had standing to challenge the Navy's
   rejection of its offer, ISA necessarily had standing to challenge
   the untimely notification.  ISA states:
 
        The  Board ruled  that when  the  Navy determined  that
        ISA's  price update was  unacceptable, ISA was  at "the
        end of  its protest  trail."  Opinion  at 18.   Count 3
        does  not take ISA  a single step past  the end of this
        protest  trail.  Count 3  merely asserts that  when the
        Navy decided  that ISA  was at the  end of  the SNAP II
        trail  it  had an  obligation  under  the  FAR and  the
        decisions of this  Board to give  ISA timely notice  of
        that determination.
 
   Motion for Reconsideration at 11.
 
        We  agree  that   the  untimely  notice  allegation   is  so
   intertwined with the Navy's determination that ISA's proposal was
   nonconforming that ISA did have  standing to raise that ground of
   protest as well.
 
        Although protester has standing to raise Count 3, we decline
   to address that claim.  The  issue is subordinate to the question
   whether  the rejection  of ISA's  proposal  as nonconforming  was
   proper.  Having denied that claim, we view the  timeliness of the
   notice of  such rejection to be academic in  this forum.  Even if
   we were to grant  Count 3, protester would not be entitled to any
   relief in  this forum.   While protester may have  incurred legal
   expenses pursuing  an SDB protest  at SBA, such expenses  are not
   compensable  at  this Board.    Nor would  the  late notification
   violation  entitle  protester to  bring  a  cost case  under  the
   circumstances here.   Count 3 was by no  means the thrust  of the
   protest; it  was a minor  ancillary allegation in the  context of
   this  procurement.   Protester recognizes  that all of  its other
   seven counts  were properly dismissed  for lack of  an interested
   party.  Thus, even if the Board  were to grant Count 3, protester
   would  not  have  demonstrated a  significant  violation  of law,
   regulation, or  DPA or  have obtained any  benefit regarding  the
   procurement  as  a result  of  the  protested  action.    Bedford
   Computer  Corp.,  GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P),  89-2  BCA    21,827,  at
   109,814,  1989 BPD   121, at 7.  As such, protester would  not be
   entitled to an award of costs.[foot #] 5
 
 
        In conclusion, even if protester were to prevail on Count 3,
   protester would not be entitled to any relief in this forum other
   than a  declaration that a  regulation was  violated; the  Board,
   therefore, deems it  inappropriate to address the merits  of this
   count at this  time.  Cf. Guerra  v. Sutton, 783 F.2d  1371, 1376
   (9th  Cir. 1986)  (District  Court  properly  declined  to  grant
   declaratory relief where  declaration would have been  "so narrow
   as to be useless to the plaintiffs.")
 
                                Decision
 
        The  motion for  reconsideration is  GRANTED.   The  Board's
   decision dismissing Count 3 is affirmed on other grounds.
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   I concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA
   Board Judge
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 5   The Board's decision awarding costs in Gallegos
                                                            ________
   Research Group Corp.,  GSBCA 10125-C(9983-P), 90-1 BCA    22,609,
   ____________________
   1990 BPD   21 is distinguishable.   There, protester had standing
   to proceed with the protest,  protester had abandoned all  claims
   other than  the notification claim, and the  Board concluded that
   the notification in Gallegos was misleading and inaccurate.
                       ________