Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals Further Clarifies Standing Requirements

Readers of this blog may recall a post from last year, found here, that examined the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals’ interpretation of an “interested party.”

In that case, the Board looked to the definition of an interested party under SF&P §15-217(a)(1), which states that “a prospective bidder or offeror, a bidder, or an offeror may submit a protest to the procurement officer.” Regulations further limit an interested party to “an actual or prospective bidder, offeror, or contractor that may be aggrieved by the solicitation or award of the contract, or by the protest.” COMAR 21.10.02.01B(1).

That case also noted that a claimant does not need to be next in line for the award, but can show that it is “aggrieved” if it has been “affected competitively” by the State. A recent MSBCA case, found here, further explains that the “affected competitively” analysis “involves consideration of the party’s status or relation to the procurement and the nature of the issues involved.” This is typically a question of fact and, when disputed, requires a merits hearing.

These issues often arise when a contractor that is not next in line for the award files a protest.  However, if the alleged impropriety affects that party (or corrupts the entire process), then any party not awarded – even those well down the line – could likely make a strong argument that it has been affected competitively and, thus, has standing to protest.

The case is In the Consolidated Appeals of Qlarant Integrity Solutions, Inc., Docket nos. 3157, 3158, 3163, & 3169.