[Request for Reconsideration of Protest of GSA Contract Award for Moving Services]
Highlights
A firm requested reconsideration of its partially dismissed and denied protest of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract award for moving services. GAO had held that the protester untimely filed after bid opening its protest regarding the formula GSA used to calculate the awardee's bid prices. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that GAO should have considered its protest under the significant-issue exception. GAO held that it would not consider the protest under the significant-issue exception, since the issue was not of widespread interest to the procurement community. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was denied.
B-228534, Oct 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 414
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Interested Parties Direct Interest Standards DIGEST: Protest filed by company not in line for award is dismissed because the company does not have the requisite direct economic interest to be considered an interested party under the General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations.
Storz Instrument Company:
Storz Instrument Company protests the award of a contract to Microscope Company under invitation for bids No. DLAl2O-87R-1872, issued by the Defense Personnel Support Center, for surgical microscopes. We dismiss the protest.
On October 20, 1987, the procuring agency reported that Storz was the third low bidder. We have held that a protester not in line for award lacks standing as an interested party to have its protest considered on the merits. See First Federal Data Services Company, B-224183.2, Feb. 18, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 179. This is because our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R Secs. 21.0(a) and 21.1(a) (1987), require that a bidder qualify as an interested party, defined as an actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest is affected by the award of, or the failure to award, the contract, in order to be eligible to pursue the protest. Since Storz did not allege that the second low bidder was ineligible for the award, we find that Storz is not an interested party.
The protest is dismissed.