B-216735, JAN 25, 1985, 85-1 CPD 100

B-216735: Jan 25, 1985

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

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

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - INTERESTED PARTY REQUIREMENT - PROTESTER NOT IN LINE FOR AWARD DIGEST: A PROTESTER CHALLENGING A CONTRACT AWARD IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY UNDER GAO BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. ITS PROTEST THUS IS DISMISSED. WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IN LINE FOR AWARD IF ITS PROTEST WERE UPHELD. SSC PRINCIPALLY CONTENDS THAT TMS'S BID TOOK EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN IFB REQUIREMENTS AND THUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. A PARTY MUST BE "INTERESTED" BEFORE WE WILL CONSIDER ITS PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. A PARTY WILL NOT BE DEEMED INTERESTED WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IN LINE FOR AWARD IF ITS PROTEST WERE SUSTAINED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SSC WAS ONLY THE THIRD LOW BIDDER AFTER TMS AND SPERRY CORPORATION.

B-216735, JAN 25, 1985, 85-1 CPD 100

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - INTERESTED PARTY REQUIREMENT - PROTESTER NOT IN LINE FOR AWARD DIGEST: A PROTESTER CHALLENGING A CONTRACT AWARD IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY UNDER GAO BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, AND ITS PROTEST THUS IS DISMISSED, WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IN LINE FOR AWARD IF ITS PROTEST WERE UPHELD.

SECOND SOURCE COMPUTERS, INC.:

SECOND SOURCE COMPUTERS, INC. (SSC) PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES (TMS) UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. NA-84-IFB-00098, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT. SSC PRINCIPALLY CONTENDS THAT TMS'S BID TOOK EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN IFB REQUIREMENTS AND THUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.

UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, A PARTY MUST BE "INTERESTED" BEFORE WE WILL CONSIDER ITS PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.1(A)(1984). A PARTY WILL NOT BE DEEMED INTERESTED WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE IN LINE FOR AWARD IF ITS PROTEST WERE SUSTAINED. SEE PLURIBUS PRODUCTS INC., B-210444, MAR. 7, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 226. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SSC WAS ONLY THE THIRD LOW BIDDER AFTER TMS AND SPERRY CORPORATION, AND SSC NEITHER ALLEGES THAT SPERRY'S BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE NOR ASSERTS ANY OTHER REASON WHY SPERRY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE AWARD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPERRY, NOT SSC, WOULD BE IN LINE FOR AWARD IF TMS'S BID WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE, AND SSC THEREFORE IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY. SEE PHOTICA INC., B-211445, JULY 11, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 74.

THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.