OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation--Reconsideration and, B-

OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation--Reconsideration and, B- BNUMBER: B-278105.2; B-278105.3 DATE: November 13, 1997 TITLE: OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation--Reconsideration and, B- 278105.2; B-278105.3, November 13, 1997 ********************************************************************** Matter of:OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation--Reconsideration and Protest File: B-278105.2; B-278105.3 Date:November 13, 1997 Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., and Martin R. Fischer, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P., for the protester. Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Trisa J. Thompson, Esq., Fredric S. Singerman, Esq., and Ronald L. Sigworth, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, an intervenor. Philip Luci, Jr., Esq., Central Intelligence Agency, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Request for reconsideration of dismissal of earlier protest on the basis that the protester is not an interested party is denied where the protester's proposed and evaluated costs exceeded the available funding for this project, and the proposed and evaluated costs of at least one other eligible offeror are below the funding limitation. 2. Contention that agency was required to alert offerors to the presence of a limitation on available funding is denied as there is no requirement for agencies to reveal budgetary information in solicitations. DECISION OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest challenging award of a contract to HRB Systems, Inc. pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 97-W004, issued by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support its Records Declassification Program. OMNIPLEX argues that our Office wrongly concluded that it was not an interested party to challenge the award to HRB. In addition to asking reconsideration of our earlier decision, OMNIPLEX also contends that the CIA improperly failed to disclose in the solicitation the amount of the funding limitation that OMNIPLEX exceeded in its initial proposal. We deny the request for reconsideration and the protest. Our Office dismissed OMNIPLEX's initial protest after the CIA explained that it had a fixed amount budgeted for the Records Declassification Program, and that the evaluated costs of four of the seven proposals received--including the proposal submitted by OMNIPLEX--exceeded the amount funded. Since there were three eligible offerors whose proposals were within the funding limitation for this effort, we concluded that OMNIPLEX lacked the requisite economic interest to pursue its protest. See Eagle Mktg. Group, B-242527, May 13, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 459 at 2-3 (protester found to be an interested party despite the fact that its price exceeded available funds because there were no other offerors eligible for award other than the awardee and the protester would be eligible to participate in a resolicitation if its protest was upheld); Consolidated Constr., Inc., B-219107.2, Nov. 7, 1985, 85-2 CPD para. 529 at 3 (same). OMNIPLEX requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest on the basis that its protest challenged the acceptability of two of the three proposals with evaluated costs beneath the funding limitation, and that the CIA's request for dismissal did not clearly establish that the remaining offeror was eligible for award. Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) (1994) and our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.1(a) (1997), a protester must qualify as an interested party in order to have its protest considered by our Office. An interested party is "an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract." 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.0(a). Determining whether a party is sufficiently interested to maintain a bid protest involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of the issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the protester, and the party's status in relation to the procurement. Four Seas and Seven Winds Travel, Inc., B-244916, Nov. 15, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 463 at 3. In our view, OMNIPLEX's economic interest in this procurement is too remote to support a bid protest under our interested party requirements. We reach this conclusion for the reasons set forth below. In its initial protest filed with our Office on September 19, 1997, OMNIPLEX challenged the evaluation of both its own proposal and the proposal submitted by the awardee, HRB.