B-187286, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976
Highlights
CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO PROTESTS AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL BUS SERVICES BECAUSE OF AGENCY'S ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ITS REGULATIONS AND REQUESTS TERMINATION OF CONTRACT IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. IT THEREFORE IS REQUESTED THAT THE CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER THE INSTANT SOLICITATION BE TERMINATED. CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES RAISED AND THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT OR RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PROTESTER. WE HAVE HELD THAT A CONSULTANT ASSERTING THE "RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN" TO FILE A FORMAL BID PROTEST IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE PROTESTER THAT HER INTEREST IN THIS PROCUREMENT DERIVES SOLELY FROM HER STATUS AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN.
B-187286, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976
CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO PROTESTS AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL BUS SERVICES BECAUSE OF AGENCY'S ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ITS REGULATIONS AND REQUESTS TERMINATION OF CONTRACT IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES.
PATTI R. WHITING:
MS. PATTI R. WHITTING PROTESTS AWARD TO FREEMAN BUS SERVICE OF A CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL BUS SERVICE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. F16602-76 09095, ISSUED BY BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, LOUISIANA. THE PROTESTER CONTENDS THAT THE AGENCY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AIR FORCE REGULATION (AFR) 214-13, APRIL 14, 1970, GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENT SCHOOL CHILDREN OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, AND THE APPLICABLE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, ACT OF FEBRUARY 9, 1976, PUB. L. NO. 94-212, SEC. 707. IT THEREFORE IS REQUESTED THAT THE CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER THE INSTANT SOLICITATION BE TERMINATED.
OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A PARTY BE "INTERESTED" IN ORDER THAT ITS PROTEST MAY BE CONSIDERED. 4 C.F.R. 20.1(A) (1975). DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTESTER SATISFIES THE INTERESTED PARTY CRITERION, CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES RAISED AND THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT OR RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PROTESTER. KENNETH R. BLAND, CONSULTANT, B-184852, OCTOBER 17, 1975, 75-2 CPD 242. THIS SERVES TO INSURE A PARTY'S DILIGENT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROTEST PROCESS SO AS TO SHARPEN THE ISSUES AND PROVIDE A COMPLETE RECORD ON WHICH THE MERITS OF A CHALLENGED PROCUREMENT MAY BE DECIDED. MOREOVER, WE HAVE HELD THAT A CONSULTANT ASSERTING THE "RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN" TO FILE A FORMAL BID PROTEST IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY. ID.
WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE PROTESTER THAT HER INTEREST IN THIS PROCUREMENT DERIVES SOLELY FROM HER STATUS AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN. THE PROTEST CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES NO OTHER SPECIAL INTEREST IN THIS MATTER AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT WOULD NOT APPEAR TO PERSONALLY BENEFIT THE PROTESTER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE PROTESTER, IN HER CAPACITY AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN IS AN INTERESTED PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, SUPRA.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.