[Protest Alleging Army Violation of Established Bid Evaluation Procedures]

A firm protested that the Army violated established procedures for evaluating bids to furnish audiovisual services at an installation. Based on a cost comparison, the Army determined that it would be less costly to perform the work in-house and, therefore, did not award the contract to the protester, who was the only bidder. GAO found that the protester did not show that the Army's calculations based on personnel-related overhead were inaccurate. Although GAO agreed that the protester's assumptions regarding the direct labor cost period and adjusted labor costs were correct, GAO stated that the adjustment did not alter the final calculation which showed that it would be less costly to perform the contract in-house. Furthermore, GAO held that it was within the Army's discretion to select those cost comparison procedures and standards that most accurately fit its labor cost circumstances. In addition, the protester alleged a conflict of interest involving the fact that in-house employees evaluated the protester's proposal. GAO found that this issue was untimely, since the protester raised it during the course of the procurement but did not file a protest with GAO within 10 working days of the Army's adverse action. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.