[Protest of Contract Award Under Commerce RFP]

A firm protested a Department of Commerce contract award for product development, arguing that Commerce: (1) improperly assigned more importance to the technical aspects of the proposals than the cost aspects; (2) failed to consider the advantages of its technical proposal relative to the others; (3) misapplied the Buy American Act when evaluating the awardee's proposal; and (4) improperly modified its proposed cost upward to reflect a cost realism analysis, although the bid proposed a fixed cost. GAO held that: (1) Commerce considered equally the technical and cost aspects of all proposals; and (2) although the protester's technical proposal appeared to be more advantageous than the others, there was a substantial risk that the firm could not meet certain requirements. However, GAO also held that Commerce's adjustment of the protester's bid price was improper because fixed-price contracts place responsibility with the bidder to perform at the stated price and the contracting agency may not subject that price to adjustment. Contract award should have been made to the protester in view of its low bid price. Commerce's misapplication of the Buy American Act to the awardee's proposal had no bearing on the protester's bid price. Accordingly, the protest was sustained. Commerce should reevaluate the proposal and consider whether an award to the protester would be advantageous to the government.