B-225843.4, Jul 22, 1988, 88-2 CPD 69
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest from an offeror which would not be line for award if the protest were upheld is dismissed because the protester does not have the requisite direct economic interest required to be considered an interested party under Bid Protest Regulations. JLA argues that award to Dragon is improper because Dragon's employment of a former Army officer who allegedly participated in the preparation and review of the solicitation constituted a conflict of interest requiring the disqualification of Dragon from the competition. Which provides that when the propriety of a dismissal becomes clear only after information is provided by the contracting agency.
B-225843.4, Jul 22, 1988, 88-2 CPD 69
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protest from an offeror which would not be line for award if the protest were upheld is dismissed because the protester does not have the requisite direct economic interest required to be considered an interested party under Bid Protest Regulations.
JL Associates, Inc.:
JL Associates, Inc. (JLA), protests the proposed award of a contract to Dragon Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF40 87-R- 0016, issued by the Department of the Army for civilian mess attendant and full food services at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JLA argues that award to Dragon is improper because Dragon's employment of a former Army officer who allegedly participated in the preparation and review of the solicitation constituted a conflict of interest requiring the disqualification of Dragon from the competition.
We dismiss the protest at the Army's written request, in accordance with 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1988), which provides that when the propriety of a dismissal becomes clear only after information is provided by the contracting agency, we will dismiss the protest at that time.
Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) and Sec. 21.1(a), require that a party be "interested" before we will consider its protest. We have held that a protester is not interested where it would not be in line for award if its protest was upheld. C.A. Parshall, Inc., B-220650, B-250555.2, Jan. 14, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 38. The Army reports that JLA is fifth in line for award after final evaluation; further, the protester has not challenged the results of the evaluations. Thus, even if the protest were sustained and Dragon disqualified, JLA still would not be eligible for award. Accordingly, JLA is not an interested party to challenge the proposed award to Dragon. See Gracon Corp., B-219663, Oct. 22, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 437.
The protest is dismissed.