Skip to main content

[Protest of Navy Contract Award]

B-209776 Published: Sep 29, 1983. Publicly Released: Sep 29, 1983.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested a Navy contract award. The solicitation required that a certain component be manufactured by a particular firm, but the firm refused to supply the protester with the component. The Navy informed the protester that it would consider a substitute component but concluded that, since the protester would have difficulty developing a component, it could not successfully perform the contract. The protester argued that: (1) it should have had access to the manufacturer's component; (2) the Navy improperly evaluated the risk involved in considering the substitute component; (3) the offered price was improperly downgraded as being too unrealistic; (4) its price was improperly determined to be unreasonable; and (5) the evaluation scoring was erroneous and inconsistent. GAO held that: (1) the protester failed to protest the manufacturer's actions prior to the closing date for the receipt of proposals making that part of the protest untimely; (2) the Navy reasonably considered the risk involved in accepting a substitute component; (3) the Navy correctly penalized the apparently unrealistically priced proposal; (4) the protester's offered price was unreasonably lower than any other offered price or estimate; and (5) it would have been improper to evaluate the protester's unrealistic price using standard criteria. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bid evaluation protestsContract award protestsContract costsEvaluation criteriaNaval procurementTechnical proposal evaluationUntimely protestsU.S. NavyBid proposals