Matter of: Tim-Co Engine Services, Inc. File: B-248316 Date: May 20, 1992
Highlights
Protest challenging award as improper is dismissed where protester submitted the third-low bid and is. Not an interested party under General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations because protester would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. Bidders were advised that contract award would be based upon prices submitted for the first 18 CLINs. Four bids were received. The results were as follows: Wartsila Diesel. We will not consider Tim- Co's protest. That is. Determining whether a party is sufficiently interested involves consideration of that party's status in relation to the procurement. Where there is another party that has a greater interest than the protester.
Matter of: Tim-Co Engine Services, Inc. File: B-248316 Date: May 20, 1992
Protest challenging award as improper is dismissed where protester submitted the third-low bid and is, therefore, not an interested party under General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations because protester would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained.
Attorneys
DIGEST
DECISION Tim-Co Engine Services, Inc. protests the award of a subcontract by Interocean Management Corporation to Wartsila Diesel, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTMA-9292-B-204005, issued on behalf of the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD), for the repair of the main propulsion engine on the Cape Edmont.
We dismiss the protest.
Interocean Management Corporation, acting as the Ship Manager for MARAD, issued the solicitation to 10 prospective bidders on March 20, 1992.
The IFB pricing schedule set forth 65 "Supplies/Services" contract line item numbers (CLIN); bidders were advised that contract award would be based upon prices submitted for the first 18 CLINs.
At the April 3 bid opening, four bids were received. The results were as follows:
Wartsila Diesel, Inc. $671,812.00 North Florida Shipyard 817,268.00 Tim- CoEngine Service 845,159.50 Jacksonville Shipyard 970,835.00
That same day, Interocean Management Corporation awarded the contract to Wartsila Diesel as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder.
On April 10, Tim-Co filed a protest with this Office, challenging the award to Wartsila as improper; specifically, Tim-Co argues that Wartsila has underbid this project. As explained below, we will not consider Tim- Co's protest.
Under the bid protest provisions of the CICA, 31 U.S.C. Secs. 3551-3556, only an "interested party" may protest a federal procurement.
That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective supplier whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a). Determining whether a party is sufficiently interested involves consideration of that party's status in relation to the procurement; where there is another party that has a greater interest than the protester, we generally consider the protester to be too remote to establish interest within the meaning of our Regulations. Telos Corp., B-246177, Jan. 13, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 61.
Here, even if we found that the contract was improperly awarded to Wartsila, the record shows that another firm-North Florida Shipyard, the second-low bidder for this procurement--rather than the protester would be in line for award. Tim-Co does not question the eligibility of North Florida. Accordingly, under these circumstances, we find that Tim-Co is not an interested party within the meaning of our Regulations to challenge the award. See Negotiations Int'l, Ltd., B-242374, Mar. 26, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 329.
The protest is dismissed.