[Protest of Proposed Contract Award Under Small Business Set-Aside]

A firm protested the proposed award of a contract to a firm under a request for proposals issued by the Army for cable testers and associated input-output cables. The protester contended that: (1) the Army gave the proposed awardee an unfair competitive advantage by providing it technical assistance and information not available to other bidders prior to issuance of the solicitation; (2) the specifications and short delivery schedule included in the solicitation were tailored to the proposed awardee's equipment; (3) the Army's failure to conduct discussions, request the submission of best and final offers, and require the submission of separate technical proposals showed that the procurement was rigged to favor the proposed awardee; (4) the Army allowed the proposed awardee to test its prototype cable tester at one of its facilities without giving the other bidders a similar opportunity; and (5) the proposed awardee did not offer a commercial unit that could be purchased off-the-shelf. The Army denied that it gave the proposed awardee any unfair advantage in the course of the procurement. GAO found that: (1) the protester's arguments that the solicitation specifications and delivery schedule were unduly restrictive were untimely filed; (2) the protester did not show that the Army provided improper assistance to the proposed awardee to develop its tester; (3) where the proposed awardee was the only bidder to request preprocurement testing of its equipment, the Army did not give it an unfair advantage by conducting the tests; (4) there was no solicitation requirement that the equipment offered be commercially available; and (5) the Army was not required to conduct discussions with the bidders. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.