DISMISSED FOR LACK OF AN INTERESTED PARTY: November 9, 1995 GSBCA 13383-P ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondent. Mark Haley, President of Analytical Software, Inc., Dallas, TX, appearing for Protester. David S. Newman, Office of the Legal Adviser, Buildings and Acquisitions, United States Department of State, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, DEVINE, and DEGRAFF. DEVINE, Board Judge. This protest was filed on August 21, 1995, and amended on September 11, 1995. As amended, it challenged the award of a multi-media educational training contract to Pal-Tech, Incorporated, on several grounds. The first ground alleged that the awardee's president lacked experience in the multi-media field. The second ground alleged that the State Department used inconsistent evaluation standards when it awarded Pal-Tech the contract allegedly because of its disadvantaged small business status and its president's political background, but did not consider the president's background in considering the extent of his multi-media experience or lack thereof. The third ground alleged that the State Department's evaluations were wrong because the State Department had a history of wrong decisions in computer procurements. The fourth ground alleged that the State Department attempted to make its procurement protest-proof by awarding second place in the rankings to a firm that had other contracts with the State Department and would thus be unlikely to file a protest. The fifth ground alleged that the awardee, Pal- Tech, had inside information on the nature of the procurement that protester wasn't privy to. The Government generally denies protester's allegations and, by motion, asserts that they are frivolous and do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Government's motion also challenges protester's status as an interested party because it had no reasonable chance for an award. We consider first the Government's contention that protester does not have the status of an interested party and therefore cannot maintain this action. Findings of Fact The State Department, through its Foreign Service Institute (FSI), sought to improve its instructional training programs, including classes in some 65 foreign languages, classes in regional area studies, and studies in professional disciplines such as economics, political science, information management and traditional management skills, by applying modern instructional technology to assist both the trainers and the learners. Protest File, Exhibit 2. The request for proposals (RFP) which the State Department issued seeking assistance in this undertaking put it this way: To ensure the effective implementation of technology- assisted learning, it is essential to help the teaching staff to integrate technology into the curriculum and to assist students to maximize their use of technology- assisted learning during their training. It requires a unique mix of technological knowledge and teaching experience to make true educational use of a technology learning center. Protest File, Exhibit 2. The RFP was sent to more than a hundred prospective offerors. Id., Exhibit 3. Ten responded. Id., Exhibit 14. Each proposal was given a cost ranking, a technical ranking, and an overall ranking. Id. Protester was ranked 4th on cost, 7th on technical, and 7th overall. Id. There were thus five offerors ranked higher than protester, excluding the awardee. Id. Discussion If protester were to be successful in upsetting the award to Pal-Tech it would have no prospect of receiving the award itself because five other offerors, all ranked higher than protester, would stand in its way. For protester to have a chance at the award it must successfully challenge all those ahead of it in the rankings (and thus lower their scores below protester's), or state, and prove, a set of facts that would justify an increase in its own ranking to a level above all other offerors. Protester has done neither. The only allegation that it makes with respect to its relatively low technical ranking is that one of the evaluators gave it lower scores in certain areas than the other two evaluators did. From this fact protester infers that the evaluations made by this evaluator are necessarily incorrect. Protester does not otherwise challenge the rankings of other offerors, except the awardee's. Protester thus neither states nor proves a set of facts which would significantly affect the ranking sequence. The statute under which we operate permits only an "interested party" to pursue a bid protest. An interested party is "an actual . . . offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award . . . or by failure to award the contract." 4O U.S.C. 759(f)(9)(B)(1988). Since protester has no prospect of receiving the award even if it is successful in its challenge of the awardee, it has no direct economic interest in the procurement and thus lacks the status of one who may maintain a protest as an interested party. Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc., GSBCA 10750-P, 91-1 BCA 23,383, 1990 BPD 298, aff'd on reconsideration, Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 94-1 BCA 26,567, 1993 BPD 319. Decision In view of the foregoing the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of an interested party is granted. This protest is DISMISSED. ____________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge We concur: ROBERT W. PARKER MARTHA H. DEGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge