Skip to main content

Matter of: U.S. PolyCon Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-254655.3 Date: August 3, 1994

B-254655.3 Aug 03, 1994
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing protest on the basis that protester is not an interested party is denied where requesting party neither presents information that was not considered and warrants reversal nor demonstrates that decision is legally or factually inaccurate. Issued by the Department of the Navy for repairs to a steam distribution system located at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was unduly restrictive of competition. We dismissed the protest because we found that PolyCon was not an interested party to maintain it. The solicitation was issued for repairs to a steam distribution system. " which is defined as an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 31 U.S.C.

View Decision

Matter of: U.S. PolyCon Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-254655.3 Date: August 3, 1994

DIGEST

Attorneys

DECISION

We deny the request for reconsideration.

As discussed in our prior decision, the solicitation was issued for repairs to a steam distribution system, including the replacement of an existing underground heat distribution system (UHDS) with a new one. PolyCon, a supplier of systems composed of nonmetallic conduit, protested the requirement in the solicitation for a UHDS composed of steel conduit. We dismissed PolyCon's protest because under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and our Bid Protest Regulations, our Office may only decide a protest filed by an "interested party," which is defined as an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(2) (1988); 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0 (1994). As a prospective supplier or subcontractor, PolyCon did not have the requisite interest to be considered an interested party under CICA since it was not a prospective or actual offeror. See Allied Tube and Conduit, B-252371, Apr. 27, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 345; PolyCon Corp., 64 Comp.Gen. 523 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 567.

In requesting reconsideration, PolyCon notes that in a recent decision, Thermacor Process, Inc., B-254068, Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 277, we considered a protest by Thermacor that a solicitation, which precluded the use of polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe as an outer protective casing for underground heating and water lines, restricted competition. According to PolyCon, Thermacor is a competitor of PolyCon and a system supplier. PolyCon asserts that since we considered Thermacor's protest, we should also consider its protest.

In Thermacor Process, Inc., supra, Thermacor represented itself as a potential bidder under the protested solicitation. Neither the agency involved nor any other party alleged that Thermacor was other than a potential bidder and there was no other information in the record to indicate that Thermacor was not a potential bidder. In the absence of any indication that Thermacor was not a potential bidder, we considered Thermacor to be an interested party to challenge the specifications. PolyCon, however, was not a potential bidder under the protested solicitation. Rather, PolyCon was a potential supplier to the ultimate awardee. Thus, the cases are different and we properly dismissed PolyCon's protest.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show either that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). Since PolyCon has not met this standard, we will not reconsider our decision.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs