B-242374, Mar 26, 1991, 91-1 CPD 329
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST Protest by firm not in line for award if the protest were sustained is dismissed since the protester does not have the requisite direct economic interest in the contract award to be considered an interested party under General Accounting Office's Bid Protest Regulations. NIL contends that MSC lacks the requisite experience to perform the contract and thus questions the agency's determination that MSC is technically qualified and responsible. An interested party is an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R.
B-242374, Mar 26, 1991, 91-1 CPD 329
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards
DIGEST
Attorneys
Negotiations International, Ltd.:
Negotiations International, Ltd. (NIL) protests the award of a contract to MSC Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA72-90-R- 0001, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. NIL contends that MSC lacks the requisite experience to perform the contract and thus questions the agency's determination that MSC is technically qualified and responsible.
We dismiss the protest.
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, only an "interested party" may protest a federal procurement. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(a) (1990). An interested party is an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a). Determining whether a party is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit of relief sought by the protester, and the party's status in relation to the procurement. Black Hills Refuse Serv., 67 Comp.Gen. 261 (1988), 88-1 CPD Para. 151. A protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained. ECS Composites, Inc., B-235849.2, Jan. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 7.
Here, there were three offerors, all of whom were found technically acceptable. The solicitation provided for award to the low-priced, technically acceptable offeror. MSC submitted the low offer and NIL submitted the high offer. Since the second low offeror would precede the protester in eligibility under this solicitation, even if MSC were found ineligible, the protester lacks the direct economic interest required to maintain a protest. /1/
The protest is dismissed.
/1/ NIL assumed that it was next in line for award after MSC because the second low offeror, Business Management Research Associates, Inc. (BMRA), had not extended its offer when given the opportunity by the agency. However, BMRA subsequently submitted a revised cost proposal in response to an amendment to the RFP. NIL likewise submitted a revised cost proposal after an earlier declination to extend its original offer. Thus, as the second low, technically acceptable offeror, BMRA, not NIL, would be in line for award if we sustained the protest.