International Training, Inc.

B-272699 Oct 02, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester is not an interested party to protest the failure of a contracting agency to follow sole source acquisition procedures where the solicitation contains restrictive requirements which render the protester ineligible for award and the protester does not challenge these restrictive terms. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party. The purpose of the training services is to prepare Foreign Service and other personnel "to recognize. React to threats and acts stemming from terrorism . . . and other dangerous criminal activity[.]" The RFP required the contractor to provide a training facility that at a location "will not exceed an 80 road mile radius from the U.S. View Decision Matter of: International Training, Inc. File: B-272699 Date: October 2, 1996 Protester is not an interested party to protest the failure of a contracting agency to follow sole source acquisition procedures where the solicitation contains restrictive requirements which render the protester ineligible for award and the protester does not challenge these restrictive terms. Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Pompan, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DECISION International Training, Inc. protests request for proposals (RFP) No. S- OPRAQ-96-R-0564, issued by the Department of State for defensive driving training services to be conducted at the contractor's facility. The protester alleges that the procurement does not comply with statute and regulations governing sole source procurements. We dismiss the protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party. The purpose of the training services is to prepare Foreign Service and other personnel "to recognize, avoid, and react to threats and acts stemming from terrorism . . . and other dangerous criminal activity[.]" The RFP required the contractor to provide a training facility that at a location "will not exceed an 80 road mile radius from the U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC." The RFP also required that the facility have a road course that includes hills in the road and "natural foliage and/or natural terrain cover and concealment areas . . . to allow for realistic surprise . . . attack and ambush scenarios." The due date for submission of proposals was July 22, 1996. On July 16, International Training protested to our Office alleging that only one source, BSR, Inc., can satisfy the facility location and road course topography requirements, and thus the procurement must be conducted as a sole source procurement. [1] International Training does not protest the reasonableness of these requirements, but requests only that our Office find that sole source acquisition procedures were required to be followed. Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551-3556 (1994), only an "interested party" may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a) (1996). Determining whether a party is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit of relief sought by the protester, and the party's status in relation to the procurement. Black Hills Refuse Serv., 67 Comp. Gen. 261 (1988), 88-1 CPD Para. 151. A protester is not an interested party where it would not be eligible to receive a contract award were its protest to be sustained. ECS Composites, Inc., B-235849.2, Jan. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 7. Here, the protester concedes that its training facilities cannot meet the stated requirements which it did not protest. Therefore, International Training could not be eligible for award either under this RFP or if this procurement were conducted under sole source procedures. Since the protester could not be eligible for contract award were its protest sustained, and has not otherwise protested the terms of the RFP which make it ineligible for award, International Training is not an interested party for the purposes of this protest. See National Customer Eng'g, B-251166, Feb. 9, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 118. The protester argues, however, that our decision in Sun Refining and Marketing Co.; Barrett Refining Corp., B-239973; B-239973.2, Oct. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 305, establishes the interested party status of a party ineligible for award under the terms of solicitation where, as here, the protester alleges that the contracting agency has improperly failed to conduct the procurement according to sole source procedures.