[Request for Reconsideration of Protest Against Coast Guard Solicitation]
Highlights
A firm requested reconsideration of its protest against a Coast Guard solicitation for solid state flashers. GAO had held that the protester was not an interested party, since it had withdrawn its bid. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that the bid it withdrew was for a solicitation other than the one it protested. GAO held that the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest, since it withdrew its bid. Accordingly, the dismissal was affirmed.
B-246795.2, Feb 20, 1992
DIGEST: Dismissal of protest on basis that protester is not an interested party is affirmed where there are intermediate parties that have a greater interest in the procurement than the protester.
Attorneys
Automated Power Systems, Inc.-- Reconsideration:
Automated Power Systems, Inc. requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTCG36-92 B-00008, issued by the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for solid state flashers.
We dismissed the protest on the basis that Automated Power was not an interested party under our Bid Protest Regulations since Automated Power indicated that it had "officially withdrawn" its bid from the procurement. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) (1991). Automated Power states that the bid it withdrew was under a solicitation other than the one which is the subject of its protest.
We affirm the dismissal.
As we stated in our decision, under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) (1988), and our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(a) (1991), a protester must qualify as an interested party in order to have its protest considered by our Office. Seals Servs., Inc., B-235523, June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 581. In order to qualify as an interested party, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award or failure to award a contract. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(2); 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a). This standard is not based on a protester's prior participation, or anticipated participation in a particular procurement; rather, it involves consideration of a protester's status in the context of the particular procurement.
Here, while it now appears that Automated Power did not withdraw its bid under the solicitation at issue, the protester would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained because, of the four bids received, Automated Power's was the highest. Where there are intermediate parties that have a greater interest in the procurement than the protester, we generally consider the protester's interest to be too remote to qualify the protester as an interested party. Aviation Sys. Mfg., Inc.-- Recon., B-241180.2, Feb. 1, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 104] Airtranst Inc., B-231047, May 8, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 473.
The dismissal is affirmed.