Protest of Navy Contract Award

A company protested a contract awarded under a request for proposals issued by the Navy, contending that the awardee participated in drawing up the procurement specification, and that the awardee's personnel were either not employed or were committed to other work at the time of proposal submission. The protester also claimed that: the solicitation failed to give advice as to the division of work between different performance locations; the proposal evaluator was biased against the protester; the agency failed to help the protester upgrade its technical proposal during oral discussions; and offerors were not provided the required notice of impending award to permit a challenge to the awardee's size status. Allegations of improper solicitation were speculative and did not meet the burden imposed on the protester to establish its case. The mere fact that the awardee had other contracts and contacts with procurement activity was insufficient to invalidate the award. The protest on the issue of performance location advice was untimely. Discussions were conducted with the protester on perceived deficiencies. Evaluation and award to the higher-cost, technically superior offeror was not shown to be arbitrary. Failure to provide notice prior to award to allow for a size status challenge was a procedural shortcoming which did not affect the validity of an otherwise proper award. The protest was denied.