[Complaint Concerning Award of Contract Pursuant to DOE Cooperative Agreement]

A firm complained of a contract award under a solicitation issued by a firm pursuant to a cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy, contending that: (1) as low bidder, it should have received the contract award, because it was informed by a firm that participated in contractor selection that award would be made based on price; (2) the procuring firm improperly used its own past experience with bidders as an evaluation factor; (3) the procuring firm did not give the complainant the opportunity to rebut negative references; (4) the procuring firm improperly added the cost of extra supervisory personnel to the cost of the complainant's bid for evaluation purposes; (5) the procuring firm ignored a consultant firm's recommendation to award the contract to the protester; (6) the procuring firm was biased in favor of the awardee; and (7) the procuring firm violated the cooperative agreement by failing to provide protest resolution procedures. The complainant also claimed reimbursement for proposal preparation costs. GAO held that: (1) the solicitation set forth technical evaluation criteria and the complainant relied on the advice of the consultant firm at its own risk; (2) the procuring firm properly used the complainant's past experience as an evaluation factor; (3) the procuring firm was not required to allow the complainant to rebut negative references; (4) since the award was based on factors other than cost, the matter of the cost of supervisory personnel was academic; (5) the procuring firm was not bound by the consultant's recommendation; (6) the complainant provided no proof that the procuring firm was biased in favor of the awardee; and (7) even if the procuring firm was required to provide protest procedures, the lack of such procedures did not affect the validity of the award. Accordingly, the complaint was denied in part and dismissed in part, and the claim was denied.