B-230934.3, Jun 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD 577

B-230934.3: Jun 16, 1988

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties DIGEST: Low bidder found to be nonresponsible is not an interested party entitled to file a protest when the protest is directed against the second and third low bidders but not the fourth low bidder since even if the protest were sustained a party other than the protester would be in line for award. Alleging that they are not responsible and that they have engaged in collusive practices. We are advised that GAFF. GAFF therefore is ineligible for award under this solicitation. Since we are further advised that there is also a fourth bidder. It appears that award could be made under the IFB to a party other than GAFF even if we were to sustain the protest.

B-230934.3, Jun 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD 577

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties DIGEST: Low bidder found to be nonresponsible is not an interested party entitled to file a protest when the protest is directed against the second and third low bidders but not the fourth low bidder since even if the protest were sustained a party other than the protester would be in line for award.

GAFF Manufacturing, Inc:

GAFF Manufacturing, Inc. protests any award to the second and third low bidders under the Defense Logistics Agency's invitation for bids No. DLA700-88-B-0182, alleging that they are not responsible and that they have engaged in collusive practices, including the violation of the Certificate of Independent Price Determination in their bids.

We are advised that GAFF, the low bidder, has been found nonresponsible for this procurement, and that the Small Business Administration has declined to issue GAFF a Certificate of Competency. GAFF therefore is ineligible for award under this solicitation. Since we are further advised that there is also a fourth bidder, about whom GAFF does not protest, it appears that award could be made under the IFB to a party other than GAFF even if we were to sustain the protest. Under these circumstances, GAFF is not an interested party entitled to file a protest. See, e.g., Gentex Corp., B-225669, Feb. 27, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 230; 4 C.F.R. Secs. 21.0(a), 21.1(a) (1988).

Accordingly, we dismiss the protest. However, we are bring to the contracting agency's attention, for its consideration, the allegations concerning collusive bidding.