BNUMBER:  B-272699
DATE:  October 2, 1996
TITLE:  International Training, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:International Training, Inc.

File:     B-272699

Date:October 2, 1996

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.

DIGEST

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.

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.  
We disagree.  

In Sun Refining, the protesters protested the solicitation's 
restrictive delivery terms and alleged that the solicitation was an 
improper de facto sole source procurement.  We agreed with the 
protesters' assertions that the delivery terms restricted competition 
to a single source, but also agreed with the contracting agency's 
assertion that the restrictive delivery terms were reasonably required 
to satisfy the agency's needs.  We sustained the protest because a 
solicitation which by its terms restricts competition to a single 
source does not allow for full and open competition.  In other words, 
the gist of the protests was that an agency in such circumstances 
could not proceed with the protested procurement under full and open 
competition procedures unless it revised the protested delivery terms.  
Since the protesters would have been eligible to compete for award but 
for the protested delivery terms, they were interested parties.[2]  
See McNeil Technologies, Inc., B-254909, Jan. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  40.

Unlike the protesters in Sun Refining, International Training 
specifically does not protest the restrictive terms of the RFP,[3] but 
seeks only to have the procurement conducted under sole source 
procedures in hopes that the resulting agency review of the 
requirements might prompt the agency to revise these requirements in 
order to permit International Training to compete.  However, since 
International Training did not challenge the restrictive terms of the 
RFP, a decision by our Office on this protest cannot directly result 
in International Training's becoming eligible for, or eligible to 
compete for award.  Thus, International Training lacks the direct 
economic interest in the outcome of this protest which is necessary to 
maintain a protest.  See Recon. Optical, Inc.; Lockheed Martin 
Fairchild Sys., B-272239; B-272239.2, July 17, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  21 
(speculation about possible future action which an agency might take 
is not a sufficiently direct economic interest).

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency received only one proposal (from BSR) by the proposal 
due date.

2. Since the record there evidenced that the agency indeed required 
the restrictive delivery terms and did not intend to revise these 
terms, we recommended that the agency conduct the procurement using 
sole source procedures.

3. The protester, citing International Training, Inc., B-242254, Mar. 
13, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  283, alleges that our Office has previously 
determined that these restrictive requirements are reasonable, and 
thus contends that protesting these terms would now be futile.  That 
case involved a protest after award of a contract by the Department of 
the Army under a similar solicitation for defensive driving training.  
There, we denied the protest of the agency's evaluation of proposals; 
although International Training also protested the restrictive 
requirements, we dismissed that protest issue as untimely.  We thus 
did not consider the merits of whether the requirements were 
reasonable in that solicitation.  Moreover, no protest other than the 
present one has been filed with our Office concerning the terms of 
this RFP.