[Request for Reconsideration of Protest Under Navy IFB]

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision which denied its protest of a Navy invitation for bids (IFB) that limited the materials to be used and excluded its product. GAO held that the contracting agency was primarily responsible for determining its minimum needs, and the protester failed to affirmatively prove its case that the IFB was unduly restrictive of competition. The protester contended that GAO gave undue consideration to statements of Navy technical experts, and it argued that the Navy failed to conduct specific testing. In addition, the protester submitted results of tests which showed that its product was successfully being used. GAO has consistently held that, in technical disputes, a protester's disagreement with the agency's opinion, even where the protester's position is supported by expert technical advice, does not invalidate the agency's opinion. Since the protester failed to provide evidence of factual or legal errors in the prior decision, that decision was affirmed.