[Protest of Any Contract Award by Army Contending Specifications Need Clarification]

A firm protested the award of any contract by the Army for guard services, contending that the specifications needed to be clarified to allow bidders to compete on an equal basis. The protester stated that the specifications were vague and ambiguous in two areas: (1) the degree of supervision of the project manager and the actual number of supervisors required; and (2) the specific number of guard posts and the manhours of coverage for each post. The Army contended that, although the invitation for bids (IFB) did not specify the exact level and mix of personnel or tours of duty, it provided a basis upon which a proper bid could be prepared allowing prospective contractors maximum flexibility to utilize their expertise. GAO stated that a solicitation is not improper because the specifications do not give the exact details of performance which a contract will require; rather, it only requires that the specifications be unambiguous and inform bidders of the minimum requirements of contract performance. GAO believes that the IFB documents, coupled with the opportunity for a site visit, provided adequate explanation for the Army's requirements and were adequate to permit competitive bidding. Accordingly, the protest was denied.