[Protest of HUD Solicitation for Real Estate Closing Services]

A firm protested a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) solicitation for real estate closing services, contending that it was unduly restrictive, since it required bidders to be state-licensed attorneys. HUD contended that the: (1) protester was not sufficiently interested to protest, since it was not an attorney, was not eligible to bid, and did not submit a bid; and (2) restrictive requirement was required under state law. GAO held that the: (1) protester was sufficiently interested to protest, since it would be eligible under a resolicitation without the restrictive requirement; (2) solicitation unreasonably restricted competition; and (3) protester was entitled to reimbursement of its protest costs. Accordingly, the protest was sustained.