B-241206, Nov 13, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

B-241206: Nov 13, 1990

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest by firm not in line for the 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 Bid Protest Regulations. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. Were included in the competitive range. The low offeror which was awarded the contract. The agency argues that Siemens is not an interested party to protest the award because Siemens is the third low offeror and would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained.

B-241206, Nov 13, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest by firm not in line for the 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 Bid Protest Regulations.

Attorneys

Siemens Information Systems, Inc.:

Siemens Information Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Federal Computer Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-FMS -90-0019, issued by the Department of the Treasury for the purchase, installation and maintenance of a laser printer.

We dismiss the protest.

The RFP essentially provided for award to the low, technically acceptable offeror. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP, and three of the four offerors, including Siemens and Federal, were included in the competitive range. Siemens contends that the printer, an IBM 3835, offered by Federal, the low offeror which was awarded the contract, did not meet the RFP's specifications.

The agency argues that Siemens is not an interested party to protest the award because Siemens is the third low offeror and would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. The record shows that the three competitive range offerors were considered to be technically equal (all met the mandatory requirements) and that award was made to low, technically acceptable offeror. According to the agency, the second low offeror offered a different printer from the IBM 3835.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) (1990), a party must be "interested" in order to have its protest considered by our Office. Determining whether a party is sufficiently interested involves consideration of a party's status in relation to a procurement. Where there are intermediate parties that have a greater interest than the protester, we generally consider the protester to be too remote to establish interest within the meaning of our Bid Protest Regulations. See Automated Servs., Inc., B-221906, May 19, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 470; Brunswick Corp. and BrownellCo., Inc., B-225784.2 et al., July 22, l987, 87-2 CPD Para. 74. A party will not be deemed interested where it would not be in line for the protested award even if its protest were sustained. See id.

As Siemens has not contested the acceptability of the second ranked offeror nor challenged the propriety of the evaluation of its own proposal, we have no reason to believe that Siemens would be in line for award if its protest were sustained. Accordingly, Siemens is not an interested party entitled to protest.

The protest is dismissed.