[Protest of Rejection of Offer by Forest Service]

A bidder protested the rejection of her low bid under a request for quotations issued by the Forest Service to obtain cleaning services. When the Forest Service learned that the protester was married to the contracting officer's representative, it reviewed this factor to determine whether there was an actual or potential conflict of interest. When the Forest Service found that the protester's husband would be supervising her contract and that his duties could not be changed to eliminate the apparent conflict of interest, the Forest Service rejected her offer. The protester stated that she had been discriminated against because of her relationship to a Forest Service employee and, because it knew of the relationship, it should have refused to open her offer. She requested GAO to require the Forest Service to replace her husband and award her the contract or award her damages equal to the earnings which she lost on another contract while awaiting the Forest Service decision. Since the protester's husband did not notify his supervisor of his relationship with the protester, and his duties could not be changed to avoid a conflict of interest, GAO found that the Forest Service acted properly in rejecting the protester's offer. Moreover, GAO also found that the protester's father was the main recreation manager of the Forest Service. Accordingly, this protest ground was denied. Since there was no legal basis on which GAO could award damages for lost earnings to the protester, her claim was dismissed.