B-228534, Oct 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 414
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Interested Parties Direct Interest Standards DIGEST: Protest filed by company not in line for award is dismissed because the company does not have the requisite direct economic interest to be considered an interested party under the General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations. The procuring agency reported that Storz was the third low bidder. We have held that a protester not in line for award lacks standing as an interested party to have its protest considered on the merits. This is because our Bid Protest Regulations. Defined as an actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest is affected by the award of. Since Storz did not allege that the second low bidder was ineligible for the award.
B-228534, Oct 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 414
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Interested Parties Direct Interest Standards DIGEST: Protest filed by company not in line for award is dismissed because the company does not have the requisite direct economic interest to be considered an interested party under the General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations.
Storz Instrument Company:
Storz Instrument Company protests the award of a contract to Microscope Company under invitation for bids No. DLAl2O-87R-1872, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center, for surgical microscopes. We dismiss the protest.
On October 20, 1987, the procuring agency reported that Storz was the third low bidder. We have held that a protester not in line for award lacks standing as an interested party to have its protest considered on the merits. See First Federal Data Services Company, B-224183.2, Feb. 18, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 179. This is because our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R Secs. 21.0(a) and 21.1(a) (1987), require that a bidder qualify as an interested party, defined as an actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest is affected by the award of, or the failure to award, the contract, in order to be eligible to pursue the protest. Since Storz did not allege that the second low bidder was ineligible for the award, we find that Storz is not an interested party.
The protest is dismissed.