BNUMBER:  B-276726 
DATE:  June 24, 1997
TITLE: Wingfield & Hundley Elevator Co., Inc., B-276726, June 24,
1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Wingfield & Hundley Elevator Co., Inc.

File:     B-276726

Date:June 24, 1997

Eric L. Boyer for the protester.
Philip Leber, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Katherine Riback, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester is not an interested party to assert that the contracting 
agency improperly evaluated awardee's "equal" product in a brand name 
or equal procurement where the protester would not be in line for 
award even if the allegation were correct.

DECISION

Wingfield & Hundley Elevator Co., Inc. protests the Department of 
Veterans Affairs's award of an elevator modernization contract to 
Montgomery Kone under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 652-64-97.  The 
protester contends that the awardee's "equal" product does not conform 
to certain salient characteristics required by the solicitation.  

We dismiss the protest.

The IFB was issued on December 31, 1996, soliciting bids on a 
brand-name-or-equal basis for an elevator upgrade and elevator 
maintenance for a 7-month period.  The agency received seven bids, 
including the protester's and the awardee's.   Montgomery Kone's low 
bid was for an "equal" product; Wingfield & Hundley submitted the 
third low bid.  Montgomery Kone's offered product was determined to be 
acceptable, and the agency made award to that firm.  This protest to 
our Office followed in which the protester questions the agency's 
evaluation of Montgomery Kone's "equal" product.  

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and our regulations, 
a protester must qualify as an interested party before its protest may 
be considered by our Office.  See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(a) (1997).  That is, 
a protester must have a direct economic interest which would be 
affected by the award of a contract, or the failure to award a 
contract.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a).

We will not consider the protest because Wingfield & Hundley lacks the 
direct economic interest necessary to qualify as an interested party 
to challenge the award to Montgomery Kone.  The agency report 
indicates that Wingfield & Hundley's bid was third low and that there 
was another responsive bid between the awardee's bid and the 
protester's bid.  The protester has not challenged the acceptability 
of this firm's bid, thus, therefore even if we determined that the 
awardee's bid was nonresponsive, there is an intervening bidder who 
would be in line for award before Wingfield & Hundley.  See Ebon 
Research Sys., B-253833.2; B-253833.3, Nov. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  270 at 
7.

Wingfield & Hundley also submitted with its bid a letter offering a 
deduction for maintenance which the protester contends would make its 
bid low.  However, Wingfield & Hundley's "offer" provided, "[i]f you 
decide to contract this upgrade with us and extend our existing 
maintenance contract under the current terms and conditions for 2 
years after the completion of the last elevator to be modernized under 
this proposal, then our total bid price will be reduced by 
$46,800.00."  

To be responsive, a bid must unequivocally offer to provide the 
requested items or services in total conformance with the requirements 
specified in the IFB.  All bidders must compete for sealed bid 
contracts on a common basis.  No individual bidder can reserve rights 
or immunities that are not extended to all bidders by the conditions 
and specification advertised in the IFB.  See Lathan Constr. Corp., 
B-250487, Feb. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  107 at 3.  By qualifying its 
reduced price on the agency extending its existing maintenance 
contract for 2 years, the protester is requesting a sole-source award 
for work that is not available to other bidders as it is not within 
the scope of the IFB.  Since this offer imposes conditions that would 
modify material requirements of the solicitation it is not for 
consideration as it is clearly nonresponsive.  Bishop Contractors, 
Inc., B-246526, Dec. 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  555 at 2.  

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States