DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: November 5, 1992
                                                           
 
 
                             GSBCA 12150-P
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Michael Cunningham, Jr., and Diane-Marie  Carrero, Office of
   Counsel, Naval Regional Contracting Center, Philadelphia, PA, and
   Jonathan  Kosarin,  Office  of  Counsel,  Naval   Supply  Systems
   Command, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before  Board Judges LaBELLA,  Acting Chief Judge,  WILLIAMS, and
   VERGILIO.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        Protester, Integrated  Systems Group, Inc. (ISG),  has filed
   this protest in connection with a procurement being  conducted by
   respondent, the  Department of the  Navy (Navy).  The  Navy seeks
   maintenance  services  for  automatic  data processing  equipment
   located in Bermuda.  ISG complains of a determination made by the
   Navy  that it is not responsible.   The agency has revisited that
   determination and  has yet  to make a  final determination.   The
   protest is  premature and thus  must be dismissed for  failure to
   state a valid basis of protest.
 
                               Background
 
        The Navy issued its request  for proposals (RFP) on June 11,
   1992.   ISG  submitted  a  proposal.   On  October 10,  protester
   received  from the Small  Business Administration (SBA)  a letter
   dated October 9, which  stated that the  Navy had rejected  ISG's
   proposal because ISG  was non-responsible.  Protester's  Reply to
   Show Cause Order,  Attachment.  The reasons stated  were that ISG
   would  be relying  entirely on  a subcontractor  to do  the work,
   would not be able  to perform any of the work itself  and did not
   have a  signed  agreement with  the  subcontractor.   The  letter
   stated that  ISG could  appeal through  the SBA's Certificate  of
   Competency (COC) Program.  Id.
 
 
        After  receiving the above  letter, a representative  of ISG
   telephoned the SBA.   An SBA official apparently suggested  that,
   if ISG  had a  signed agreement with  its subcontractor,  such an
   agreement  might  cause   the  Navy  to  reverse   its  position.
   Declaration  of  Protester's  Vice  President,  Marketing  (Mills
   Declaration),   5.  ISG obtained a signed agreement and contacted
   the  Navy's  contract   negotiator.    Mills  Declaration,     7;
   Protester's Reply  to Show Cause  Order, Attachment.   The latter
   informed ISG on  or about October  19 that, because no  award had
   yet been made,  it would consider the agreement.   Declaration of
   Respondent's Negotiator  (Atkins Declaration),   5.   In essence,
   the  agency agreed  to  revisit its  determination.   In  several
   subsequent  contacts  with  ISG,  the  Navy  has  stated  nothing
   definite,  one way  or the  other, with  respect to  the question
   whether it views ISG to be responsible.  Mills Declaration,    8;
   Atkins Declaration,   7.
 
        ISG  filed its  protest on  October 27.   It  challenges the
   Navy's failure to  evaluate its proposal  in accordance with  the
   stated  evaluation  criteria  and failure  to  make  a meaningful
   determination of ISG's responsibility.   These alleged violations
   are premised on  ISG's contention that the RFP  does not prohibit
   subcontracting.   No award  has been  made.   ISG did  not appeal
   through the SBA's COC program.  Atkins Declaration,     7, 8.
 
                               Discussion
 
        The protested action, the agency determination of October 9,
   is  no  longer  final  --  the  agency  agreed  to  revisit  that
   determination.  At this point in time, the Navy is in the process
   of reviewing its elimination  of ISG.  The Navy has  not yet made
   an  award.  No adverse  agency action exists  for ISG to protest.
   See Micro-Tech U.S.A.  v. Department of the Army,  GSBCA 12086-P,
   1992  BPD   317 (Oct. 28,  1992) (protest filed after contracting
   officer  rescinded   determination  to  exclude   protester  from
   competitive range; no  basis for protest existed).   Accordingly,
   the protest is premature to the extent that it contests a  future
   determination by the  agency that protester is  nonresponsible or
   otherwise excluded from  the competition.  We,  thus, dismiss the
   protest with prejudice.  In the  event the Navy determines ISG to
   be  nonresponsible or otherwise  takes an adverse  action against
   ISG in this procurement, such action would, of course, constitute
   a new ground  of protest, since  the October 9  nonresponsibility
   determination which prompted this protest is no longer in effect.
   See Micro-Tech, 1992 BPD   317 at 2.
 
                                Decision
 
        We conclude that the protest is premature, since  the agency
   action which  prompted the  protest is being  reconsidered.   The
   protest thus lacks a valid basis and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Acting Chief Board Judge           Board Judge