Interested Parties: Time to Clear the Muddy Waters for Bid Protesters
Abstract
In a perfect world, we would not need to guess who could challenge a bid protest action. Unfortunately, the vehicle for such a challenge, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA), provides that only "interested parties" may challenge a procurement decision, yet it does not define the term "interested party." Because federal courts currently lack a consistent "test" for "interested patty," whether or not a court entertains a bid protester's action depends not only on the forum selected but also the presiding judge. Accordingly, bid protesters lack a clear understanding of what standing challenges they will face in the federal courts. Federal courts need a consistent approach in determining whom Congress intended to have standing under the new jurisdictional grant of the ADRA. while the United States district courts use normal standing principles applied in Administrative Procedure Act (APA) cases to determine who may bring a bid protest action, the judges at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) are in less agreement on what standard to apply. COFC decisions are split as to whether the court should strictly follow the Competition in Contracting Act of t984 (CICA) definition of "interested patty? employed by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Whether the courts strictly apply this definition or only look to it for guidance is an important distinction, as a judge's adoption of the GAO's definition of "interested party" significantly narrows the courtroom door for protesters.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Oct 30, 2000
- Accession Number
- ADA384669
Entities
People
- Barbara E. Shestko
Organizations
- Air Force Institute of Technology