Matter of: Logicon, Inc. File: B-249750; B-249750.4 Date: December 14, 1992

Matter of: Logicon, Inc. File: B-249750; B-249750.4 Date: December 14, 1992

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Interested parties Subcontractors Protest by large business which challenges the propriety of an award under a total small business set-aside is not for consideration where protester participated only as a subcontractor and the record is clear that even if the procurement were resolicited, it would again be solicited as a total small business set-aside.

Attorneys

DECISION Logicon, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to Geodynamics Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04703-92-R-0003, a total small business set-aside. The RFP sought proposals for independent verification and validation services (that is, detection and isolation of software errors) in certain Air Force data systems and networks. Logicon protests that the Air Force should have rejected Geodynamics's proposal as unacceptable and that the Air Force improperly assisted Geodynamics in preparing its proposal.

We dismiss the protests.

On September 20, 1991, the Air Force published a "sources sought" synopsis in the Commerce Business Daily. A total of 124 small business concerns responded to this publication. The Air Force determined that at least six of the respondents were qualified to perform the contract requirements and, on that basis, concluded that competitive proposals were like businesses. Accordingly, on February 6, 1992, the Air Force issued the RFP as a total small business set-aside.

Notwithstanding the agency's expectations, only one firm, Geodynamics, submitted a proposal by the March 23 closing date. In its proposal, Geodynamics stated that it intended to use Logicon, a large business, as a subcontractor. Since the estimated value of the contract exceeded $5 million and Geodynamics's proposal included substantial subcontracting costs, the agency determined it was necessary to perform a "make-or-buy" analysis pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.703. Accordingly, the agency asked Geodynamics to submit an alternative "make" proposal (that is, a proposal under which Geodynamics would perform the work it initially proposed to subcontract). Geodynamics complied with the agency's request and, on July 31, the agency awarded a contract to Geodynamics on the basis of its alternative "make" proposal. On August 10, Logicon filed its initial protest with our Office, supplementing the protest on November 18.

Logicon protests that it was improper for the Air Force to request an alternative "make" proposal from Geodynamics and that, in any event, the "make" proposal should have been evaluated as technically unacceptable. In its supplemental protest, based on documents it obtained pursuant to a civil suit filed in California state court, Logicon asserts that the agency improperly assisted Geodynamics in preparing its "make" proposal. Logicon contends that the Geodynamics proposal should be rejected and the requirement recompeted on an unrestricted basis, in which case Logicon would be eligible to compete.

Following submission of Logicon's protest, this Office received correspondence from two small business concerns indicating their interest in participating in this procurement in the event it is reopened. Consistent with the Air Force's prior survey and with these expressions of interest, the agency states in its administrative report that, in the event there was a recompetition of this procurement, it would be conducted as a total small business set-aside.

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and our Bid Protest Regulations, this Office only decides protests filed by an "interested party," which the statute defines as an "actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by the failure to award the contract." 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(2) (1988); 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0 (1992). A prospective subcontractor does not have the requisite direct interest to be considered a prospective or actual offeror. Polycon Corp., 64 Comp.Gen. 523 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 567; High Tech Irrigation, Inc., B-236818, Oct. 26, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 387.

On this record, it is clear that Logicon's only interest in this procurement is that of a potential subcontractor. Although, as a potential subcontractor, Logicon obviously has an economic interest in being able to offer its services to a prime contractor, that interest is not the direct economic interest of an actual or prospective offeror contemplated by CICA. Se B-241983, Nov. 20, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 412. Accordingly, Logicon is not an interested party to challenge the propriety of the agency's award to Geodynamics.

The protests are dismissed.