B-190638, DEC 20, 1977
Highlights
AS A GENERAL POLICY GAO WILL NOT CONSIDER PROTESTS FILED BY EMPLOYEES OF DISAPPOINTED OFFEROR WHERE OFFEROR ITSELF DOES NOT PROTEST. WAS A COMPETITOR FOR THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION. CHLOUBER WAS A CONTRIBUTOR TO CHADRON'S PROPOSAL AND WAS DIRECTOR OF THE CDA PROGRAM DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR WHILE IT WAS BEING OPERATED BY CHADRON. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT MR. WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT "TO RAISE A LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE AWARD OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT IS A SERIOUS MATTER.". WE HAVE STATED THAT AS A GENERAL POLICY WE WILL NOT DEVELOP PROTESTS FILED BY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF DISAPPOINTED BIDDERS OR OFFERORS WHERE THE BIDDER OR OFFEROR ITSELF HAS NOT PROTESTED. WE ALSO HAVE HELD THAT A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WHO ASSERTED "THE ASSUMED" RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN "TO LODGE A FORMAL PROTEST" WITH THIS OFFICE DID NOT QUALIFY AS AN INTERESTED PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR PROCEDURES.
B-190638, DEC 20, 1977
AS A GENERAL POLICY GAO WILL NOT CONSIDER PROTESTS FILED BY EMPLOYEES OF DISAPPOINTED OFFEROR WHERE OFFEROR ITSELF DOES NOT PROTEST.
DALE CHLOUBER:
DALE CHLOUBER HAS PROTESTED TO OUR OFFICE THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (HEW) TO KEARNEY STATE COLLEGE (KEARNEY), NEBRASKA, FOR THE CONDUCT OF A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES (CDA) UNDER THE HEAD START SUPPLEMENTARY TRAINING PROGRAM (HSST).
THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. CHLOUBER INDICATE THAT CHADRON STATE COLLEGE (CHADRON), MR. CHLOUBER'S EMPLOYER, WAS A COMPETITOR FOR THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION. MR. CHLOUBER WAS A CONTRIBUTOR TO CHADRON'S PROPOSAL AND WAS DIRECTOR OF THE CDA PROGRAM DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR WHILE IT WAS BEING OPERATED BY CHADRON. ALTHOUGH OFFICIALS OF CHADRON PROTESTED TO HEW THE AWARD TO KEARNEY OF THE HSST/CDA CONTRACT, NO SUCH PROTEST BY A COLLEGE OFFICIAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH OUR OFFICE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT MR. CHLOUBER HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE COLLEGE.
SECTION 20.1(A) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.1(A) (1977), PROVIDES THAT A PARTY MUST BE "INTERESTED" IN ORDER THAT ITS PROTEST MIGHT BE CONSIDERED.
WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT "TO RAISE A LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE AWARD OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT IS A SERIOUS MATTER." SERVICE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., "RECONSIDERATION), B-186495, AUGUST 10, 1976, 76-2 CPD 149. THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PARTY BE "INTERESTED" 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 CORRECTNESS OF A CHALLENGED PROCUREMENT MAY BE DECIDED. TO ESTABLISH INTEREST, WE REQUIRE THAT A PARTY BE SUFFICIENTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROCUREMENT. IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT, WE HAVE STATED THAT AS A GENERAL POLICY WE WILL NOT DEVELOP PROTESTS FILED BY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF DISAPPOINTED BIDDERS OR OFFERORS WHERE THE BIDDER OR OFFEROR ITSELF HAS NOT PROTESTED. A. KENNETH BERNIER AND C.J. WILLIS, B-186502, JULY 19, 1976, 76-2 CPD 56; JOHN S. CONNOLLY, PH.D, B-188832, B-188846, MAY 23, 1977, 77-1 CPD 359, AFFIRMED IN JOHN S. CONNOLLY, PH.D - RECONSIDERATION, B-188832, B-188846, JULY 26, 1977, 77-2 CPD 52. WE ALSO HAVE HELD THAT A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WHO ASSERTED "THE ASSUMED" RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN "TO LODGE A FORMAL PROTEST" WITH THIS OFFICE DID NOT QUALIFY AS AN INTERESTED PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR PROCEDURES. KENNETH R. BLAND, CONSULTANT, B-184852, OCTOBER 17, 1975, 75-2 CPD 242.
WE DO NOT CONSIDER MR. CHLOUBER TO FALL WITHIN THE CLASS OF INTERESTED PARTIES CONTEMPLATED BY OUR PROCEDURES. THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE PROTEST.