[Protest of Army Contract Award to Any Other Firm]

A firm protested the award of a contract to any firm other than itself under an invitation for bids issued by the Army for sports officiating services. The protester contended that: (1) the three apparent low bidders were substantially owned or controlled by Government employees; (2) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because its bid did not take into account the necessary insurance coverage required by the solicitation; and (3) collusion was indicated by the fact that the three low bidders submitted identical prices for many of the solicitation's line items. GAO determined that: (1) the record did not include any evidence to support the protester's contention that the awardee was substantially owned or controlled by Government employees; (2) the argument that the awardee did not have the required insurance coverage was without merit and was a matter of the awardee's responsibility; and (3) the possibility of collusive bidding was a matter to be considered by the contracting officer in determining whether a bidder was a responsible prospective contractor. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.