BNUMBER:  B-275926.2 
DATE:  May 19, 1997
TITLE: ATD-American Co.--Reconsideration, B-275926.2, May 19, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:ATD-American Co.--Reconsideration

File:     B-275926.2

Date:May 19, 1997

Eric Wischnia, for the protester.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester does not have direct economic interest required to be 
considered interested party to protest evaluation of awardee's 
proposal and resulting award where, even if protest were sustained, 
protester would not be next in line for award.

DECISION

ATD-American Company (ATD) requests reconsideration of our January 31, 
1997, dismissal of its protest of the award of a contract to BTB 
Trading, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1PI-R-0606-96, 
issued by the Department of Justice Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) 
for the purchase of various sizes of bleached white sheeting material 
for the manufacture of sheets, pillowcases and napkins.  

We deny the request.

The RFP sought proposals for a fixed-price indefinite 
delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a base year with two 1-year 
options, and provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis 
of past performance, technical, and price factors.  Award was to be 
made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the 
government.  

Nine offerors responded to the RFP.  Based on the evaluation, BTB's 
proposal was ranked first overall and ATD's proposal was ranked fifth.  
After award was made to BTB, ATD protested to our Office asserting 
that the agency incorrectly evaluated past performance, and improperly 
evaluated price by considering the total prices for the base and 
option years.  ATD also argued that BTB's offer should have been 
rejected because BTB lacked the financial capacity to perform and 
could not meet the solicitation requirement to provide domestic goods.  

We dismissed the protest because it failed to establish a valid basis 
for challenging the agency's action.  ATD's allegations concerning the 
agency's evaluation of past  performance and price were both based on 
ATD's misreading of the evaluation criteria.  With respect to ATD's 
allegations that BTB lacked the financial capacity to perform and that 
BTB had submitted a below-cost offer which indicated an intent to 
provide non-conforming, non-domestic sheeting material, there is no 
prohibition on submitting a below-cost offer, and our Office does not 
review an agency's affirmative determination of responsibility, i.e., 
that an offeror can perform a contract at the offered price, absent 
circumstances not present here.  JWK Int'l Corp., B-237527, Feb. 21, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  198 at 4.

On reconsideration, ATD argues only that its objection to the agency's 
failure to consider BTB's financial capability should not have been 
treated as a responsibility issue.  The protester points out that the 
RFP provided that offeror financial capability to acquire material, 
equipment and personnel to perform and complete the requirement would 
be considered under the technical evaluation factor.  The protester 
maintains that BTB is an undercapitalized entity whose financial 
capability was not appropriately evaluated by the agency. 

Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act 
of 1984, 
31 U.S.C.  sec.  3551-56 (1994), as amended by Pub. L. No. 104-106,  sec.  
4321(d), 5501, 5603, 110 Stat. 186, 674, 698, 700 (1996), only an 
"interested party" may protest a federal procurement.  That is, a 
protester must be 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 the contract.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(a) (1997).  Determining whether a party is sufficiently 
interested involves consideration of a party's status in relation to a 
procurement.  Where there are intermediate parties that have a greater 
interest than the protester, we generally consider the protester to be 
too remote to establish interest within the meaning of our Bid Protest 
Regulations.  Panhandle Venture V; Sterling Inv. Properties, 
Inc.--Recon., B-252982.3; B-252982.4, Sept. 1, l993, 93-2 CPD  para.  142 at 
3; The Law Co.,   
B-248631, Sept. 10, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  165 at 4.  A protester is not 
interested if it would not be in line for award if its protest were 
sustained.  Abre Enters., Inc., B-251569.2, Mar. 16, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
239 at 4.  

Here, ATD's proposal was ranked fifth overall.  ATD's allegation 
pertains only to the evaluation of BTB's financial capacity; the 
protester has not provided any basis to challenge the evaluation of 
the intervening offerors' proposals.   Accordingly, even if our Office 
found that the agency's evaluation of BTB's proposal was improper, 
because there are three intervening offerors ATD would not be next in 
line for award of a contract.  Under these circumstances, ATD is not 
an interested party to protest the award decision.  

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States