[Protest Alleging Improper Air Force Contract Award]

A firm protested a contract award to another firm under an Air Force telegraphic solicitation for air transport services. The protester contended that: (1) the Air Force evaluated prices using a method announced after bids were submitted; and (2) should the Air Force use the same evaluation method in the future, the awardee would be the only firm capable of providing the required services. The Air Force evaluated the two bids received on the basis of cost per pallet of cargo per mile, rather than the cost per trip or the total cost of each bid, and stated that the protester and the awardee orally agreed to the evaluation methodology. GAO held that, while the solicitation specifications were vague, the protester shared some of the responsibility for the situation because: (1) it did not protest the specifications before bid opening; and (2) given the vagueness of the specifications, it should not have presumed that offers would be evaluated on the basis of cost per trip. In addition, GAO held that the portion of the protest pertaining to future procurements was prematurely filed. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part. However, GAO expressed concern over serious legal deficiencies in the procurement, including: (1) the Air Force's failure to define the contract's terms and conditions in the solicitation; (2) the Air Force's failure to advise bidders that they could revise their initial bids after selection of a method of evaluation; and (3) the qualification of both initial bids.