B-232636, Nov 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD 499
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protester is not an interested party entitled to protest where the protester. Would not be in line for award even if the protest were sustained. The fact that the next low offeror was offering protester's product does not render protester interested since interest is based on protester's own direct economic interest as the firm next in line for award. Four firms were found by the contracting activity to have submitted proposals compliant with the stated technical requirements. Vitalink was fourth low with a proposed price of $39. In determining whether a protester is sufficiently interested.
B-232636, Nov 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD 499
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Interested parties - Direct interest standards DIGEST: Protester is not an interested party entitled to protest where the protester, as fourth low offeror, would not be in line for award even if the protest were sustained; the fact that the next low offeror was offering protester's product does not render protester interested since interest is based on protester's own direct economic interest as the firm next in line for award.
Vitalink Communications Corporation:
Vitalink Communications Corporation protests the award of a fixed price contract to Bridge Communications, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DCA100-88-R-0115, issued by the Defense Communications Agency for telecommunications equipment. We dismiss the protest.
The RFP provided that award would be made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. Four firms were found by the contracting activity to have submitted proposals compliant with the stated technical requirements. The awardee, Bridge, proposed a price of $19,907.50, and Vitalink was fourth low with a proposed price of $39,875. Vitalink contends that the product offered by Bridge does not conform to the technical specifications set forth in the solicitation.
To be considered by our Office, a protest must be filed by an "interested party," defined in our Bid Protest Regulations as an actual or prospective bidder or offerer whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) (1988). In determining whether a protester is sufficiently interested, we examine the extent to which there exists a direct relationship between the questions raised and the party's asserted interest and the degree to which the interest is established. In general, a party will not be deemed interested where it would not be in line for award even if the protest were sustained. Zinger Construction Co., Inc., B-220203, Oct. 30, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 493.
Applying this standard here, we find that since Vitalink is only the fourth low offerer, the firm is not an interested party eligible to bring this protest against the award to Bridge; even if we sustained the protest, Vitalink would not be in line for award. Gracon Corp., B-219663, Oct. 22, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 437.
Notwithstanding the relative ranking of proposals, Vitalink argues that it should be considered an interested party because both Aquila Tech and Primary Telecommunications, the second and third low offerors, proposed to supply Vitalink products. As mentioned above, however, a party's protest interest is based on its own direct economic interest as the firm next in line for award if its protest is sustained. A protester's interest as a manufacturer of a product to be supplied by another offeror in line for award is not sufficient for the protestor to be considered an interested party under our Regulations. See ADB Alnaco, Inc., 64 Comp.Gen. 577 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 630.