[Protest of Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command Contract Award]

A firm protested the award of a contract to another firm under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Army for an air bag system for lifting transport craft. The protester contended that: (1) the RFP specifications were based upon patents held by its supplier and performance of the contract by the awardee would entail infringement of those patents; (2) it should have been awarded the contract as the low responsive bidder; (3) the agency erred in its evaluation of responses to the RFP; and (4) the awardee was incapable of satisfactorily performing the contract. GAO held that: (1) the protester's allegation about the propriety of the solicitation specifications was untimely because the protest was filed after the closing date for receipt of initial proposals; (2) a reasonable basis existed for the procuring agency's conclusion that the awardee was the low bidder; (3) it would not question the relative merits of the offerers' technical proposals because this was the responsibility of the procuring agency; and (4) it would not review the contracting officer's affirmative determination of responsibility except in cases of possible fraud. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.