[Protest of Navy Solicitation for Chain Link Fencing]
Highlights
A firm protested a Navy solicitation for chain link fencing, contending that the solicitation was overly restrictive, since its product specification required the use of only one product grade. GAO held that the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest, since it was only a prospective supplier of the product and not an actual or potential bidder. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.
Matter of: Allied Tube & Conduit File: B-252371 Date: April 27, 1993
PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Interested parties Direct interest standards Protest that solicitation specification for construction project is restrictive of competition, filed by a manufacturing firm that is prospective supplier, not actual or prospective bidder, is not an "interested party" eligible to have its protest considered under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and General Accounting Office's implementing Bid Protest Regulations.
Attorneys
DECISION Allied Tube & Conduit protests as restrictive of competition a specification in invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62474-91-B-2549, issued by the Department of the Navy for installation of chain link fencing. The protester contends that the specification for the piping used for fence posts is overly restrictive because it requires the use of only one grade of pipe. Allied is a manufacturer of a different grade of pipe.
We dismiss the protest because Allied is not an interested party.
Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and our Bid Protest Regulations, our Office may only decide a protest 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 (1993). A prospective subcontractor or supplier does not have the requisite interest to be considered an interested party to protest under CICA since it is not a prospective or actual offeror. PolyCon Corp., 64 Comp.Gen. 523 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 567; Logicon, Inc., B-249750; B-249750.4, Dec. 14, 1992, 92-2 CPD Para. 411.
The record shows that Allied is a prospective supplier of the required pipe, not an actual or prospective bidder. Allied therefore does not qualify as an interested party under the above definition. Allied argues that it should be regarded as an interested party because its economic interest as a manufacturer and potential supplier of fence pipe to the successful bidder is affected by the Navy's decision to exclude its product. Although this obviously constitutes an economic interest, such an interest is not the direct economic interest of an actual or prospective bidder contemplated by CICA. Thus, Allied is not an interested party to protest the propriety of the solicitation's specifications and its protest will not be considered. See Ultrox Int'l, B-233013, Nov. 29, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 535; Pacific Allied Prods., Ltd., B-220181; B-220182, Oct. 18, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 424.
The protest is dismissed.