B-215717, DEC 17, 1984, 84-2 CPD 673

B-215717: Dec 17, 1984

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. 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. AWARD HERE WAS TO BE MADE TO THE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE OFFEROR PROPOSING THE LOWEST PRICE. THE RECORD SHOWS ABS WAS ONLY THE THIRD LOW OFFEROR BEHIND FORD AND IBIS CORP. ABS STATED IN ITS INITIAL PROTEST SUBMISSION THAT IBIS HAD OFFERED THE SAME TANDEM NONSTOP II SYSTEM AS FORD AND ARGUED THAT ITS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING FORD THUS WERE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO IBIS.

B-215717, DEC 17, 1984, 84-2 CPD 673

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.

ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS:

ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS (ABS) PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTRACT TO FORD AEROSPACE & COMMUNICATION CORP. (FORD) UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. F09650-83 R-0176. ABS CONTENDS THE TANDEM NONSTOP II COMPUTER OFFERED BY FORD DOES NOT MEET CERTAIN RFP REQUIREMENTS. 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, MARCH 7, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 226.

AWARD HERE WAS TO BE MADE TO THE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE OFFEROR PROPOSING THE LOWEST PRICE. THE RECORD SHOWS ABS WAS ONLY THE THIRD LOW OFFEROR BEHIND FORD AND IBIS CORP. ABS STATED IN ITS INITIAL PROTEST SUBMISSION THAT IBIS HAD OFFERED THE SAME TANDEM NONSTOP II SYSTEM AS FORD AND ARGUED THAT ITS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING FORD THUS WERE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO IBIS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPORTS, HOWEVER, THAT IBIS ACTUALLY OFFERED AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM-- THE TANDEM TXP. ABS DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS COMPUTER SYSTEM DOES NOT SATISFY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSERTS NO OTHER REASON WHY IBIS WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE AWARD IF FORD'S SYSTEM HAD BEEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE, AND ABS THEREFORE IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY. SEE PHOTICA INC., B-211445, JULY 11, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 74.

THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.

Jan 14, 2021

Jan 13, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here