B-227918.2, Aug 5, 1987
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Prior dismissal is affirmed. Where protester acknowledges that it is third-low offeror and thus would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. The IFB was issued by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. We dismissed Drake-Chenault's protest on the basis that our Office will not review a contracting agency's affirmative determination of a contractor's responsibility. Absent a showing that agency personnel acted in bad faith or that definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation were not met.
B-227918.2, Aug 5, 1987
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Prior dismissal is affirmed, where protester acknowledges that it is third-low offeror and thus would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained.
Drake-Chenault-- Reconsideration:
Drake-Chenault requests reconsideration of our summary dismissal of a bid protest filed pursuant to invitation for bids (IFB) No. MDA902-87 B-0252. The IFB was issued by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, an activity of the Department of Defense (DOD), and sought bids to provide musical programming to be broadcast for the entertainment of DOD personnel stationed overseas. Drake-Chenault protested the contract award to a company which it alleged did not meet the responsibility requirements of the solicitation.
By notice dated July 7, 1987, we dismissed Drake-Chenault's protest on the basis that our Office will not review a contracting agency's affirmative determination of a contractor's responsibility, absent a showing that agency personnel acted in bad faith or that definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation were not met. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(f) (1987).
In its request for reconsideration, Drake-Chenault asserts that the solicitation did, in fact, contain definitive responsibility criteria which were not met by the awardee. Specifically, Drake-Chenault refers to part I, sections C.2 and C.3.1.3 along with part IV, section M-4 of the solicitation which require the contractor to have an on-staff program/music advisor who: "is actively working with United States radio stations in the selection of playlists;" has "adequate training and/or experience in selecting popular adult contemporary and beautiful music;" and "is familiar with and has used (or preferably is currently using) market/audience research and test techniques to assist in selections for a playlist." Drake-Chenault alleges that the awardee does not meet the stated criteria.
We need not resolve the issue of the awardee's responsibility, since Drake-Chenault is not an interested party qualified to pursue this protest. In its initial protest, Drake-Chenault expressly stated, "It should be noted that Drake-Chenault does not stand to realize any reward from action against the awardee of this contract. In fact, our bid ranked third." Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1 (1987), our Office may only consider protests filed by an interested party, i.e., one with a direct economic interest in the outcome of the protest. We have repeatedly held that a third-low bidder is not an interested party for the purpose of filing a protest, since it would not be in line for award were the protest sustained. See e.g., St. Angelo East Coast Furniture Renewal, Inc., B-225320, Dec. 19, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 693; Charles J. Dispenza & Associates, B-224524, Dec. 3, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 636.
Here, since Drake-Chenault has expressly acknowledged that it is not in line for award, it is not an interested party, and our prior dismissal is affirmed.