[Protest of Bid Evaluation Under Navy IFB]

A firm protested the evaluation of bids under a Marine Corps solicitation, contending that: (1) the Corps did not specify a dollar value for the replacement cost of certain equipment, which made it impossible for the protester to calculate the depreciation cost of new equipment; (2) the Corps unreasonably used a life expectancy period of 10 years, rather than 13 years, in calculating a depreciation schedule for new equipment; (3) the Corps used a budget figure for the cost of new equipment and that there was no assurance that funds would be available for the amount budgeted; and (4) the Corps should have considered the cost of new equipment in evaluating offers to provide the required services on a contractor owned, contractor operated (COCO) basis. GAO held that: (1) the portion of the protest alleging that the specifications were defective was untimely filed; (2) the Corps properly used the 10-year life expectancy period; (3) the protester did not demonstrate that the Corps' budget estimate for the cost of new equipment was unreasonable; and (4) the solicitation did not provide for the consideration of the cost of new equipment in evaluating offers to provide the services on a COCO basis. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.