[Protests of Navy Subcontract Solicitation and Subcontract Award]

Two firms filed protests involving a subcontract solicitation issued by a prime contractor performing services for the Navy. The first firm protested that the solicitation specifications were unduly restrictive and that its bid was improperly evaluated. The second firm protested the award of the the subcontract to the awardee, contending that: (1) improper adjustments were made to price quotations; (2) bias was shown in the evaluation of the awardee's quotation; and (3) the awardee's product did not comply with the solicitation specifications. Since the second protester did not show fraud or bad faith on the part of the Navy officials who advised the prime contractor on the subcontract and since its protest was untimely filed, its protest was dismissed. GAO held that the first protester did not bear the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that the highly technical solicitation specifications were unduly restrictive. GAO further held that the second protester's contention that its bid was improperly evaluated was based on its contention that the solicitation specifications were restrictive; since GAO denied the protest on that ground, the second allegation was ruled moot. Consequently, the second firm's protests were denied in part and dismissed in part.