[Protest of Army IFB Alleging Unduly Restrictive Specifications]

A firm protested as unduly restrictive the specifications in an invitation for bids (IFB) issued by the Army for a motor grader. The firm did not submit a bid but initially protested the specifications to the Army, which denied the protest. The protester subsequently filed a protest with GAO, contending that the IFB unduly restricted the road grader to a particular make. The Army stated that: (1) the protest was untimely filed with GAO; (2) the protester was not an interested party and, therefore, was not eligible to file a protest; and (3) it had experienced problems with some types of road graders and the specifications were necessary to ensure that the equipment would function properly. GAO found that: (1) since the protest was submitted less than 10 working days after the initial adverse agency action, it was timely filed; (2) the protester was an interested party, because it was a potential competitor if its protest was successful; and (3) the protester failed to meet the burden of showing that the specifications were not reasonably necessary for the stated working conditions.