B-236597.2, Jan 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD 8

B-236597.2: Jan 3, 1990

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 - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest allegation challenging award by firm properly found technically unacceptable is dismissed because protester is not an interested party since it would not be in line for award if allegation were resolved in its favor. Five proposals were received and evaluated by the technical evaluation panel. The Navy determined that the low priced proposal of ISCD and the proposal of another firm were technically unacceptable. Two other firms submitted proposals that were considered technically acceptable. Award was made to Sparton on the basis of initial proposals. ISCD filed a protest challenging the agency's determination that ISCD's low priced offer was technically unacceptable.

B-236597.2, Jan 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD 8

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest allegation challenging award by firm properly found technically unacceptable is dismissed because protester is not an interested party since it would not be in line for award if allegation were resolved in its favor.

ISC Defense Systems, Inc.:

ISC Defense Systems, Inc. (ISCD) protests the award of a contract to Sparton Defense Electronics under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024- 89-R-6074 issued by the Naval Sea System Command for the purchase of the target detecting component of the Quickstrike Mines. ISCD argues that the work of Vitro, Inc., Sparton's proposed subcontractor, under prior Navy contracts for development of the target detecting component creates an organizational conflict of interest requiring disqualification of Sparton's offer.

The Navy issued the solicitation on February 1, 1989 with a closing date of May 2, 1989. Five proposals were received and evaluated by the technical evaluation panel. As a result of the evaluation, the Navy determined that the low priced proposal of ISCD and the proposal of another firm were technically unacceptable. Sparton, the second low offeror, and two other firms submitted proposals that were considered technically acceptable. Award was made to Sparton on the basis of initial proposals.

ISCD filed a protest challenging the agency's determination that ISCD's low priced offer was technically unacceptable. In our decision, ISC Defense Systems, Inc., B-236597, Dec. 20, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. ***, we found that the record demonstrated that ISCD's proposal did not meet certain technical requirements and that the Navy's finding that ISCD's proposal was technically unacceptable was reasonable.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a party is not interested to maintain a protest if it would not be in line for award if the protest were sustained. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) 21.1(a) (1989); State Technical Institute at Memphis, 67 Comp.Gen. 236 (1988), 88-1 CPD Para. 135. Since ISCD's proposal was properly determined technically unacceptable, and there are two other acceptable offerors besides the awardee that would be in line for award, ISCD is not an interested party to challenge the award decision. Id.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.