[Protest of HUD Grantee Contract Award for Water Treatment Filtration Improvements]

A firm protested a contract award by a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grantee for water treatment filtration improvements. The record showed that the low bidder offered to supply filtration equipment manufactured by either the protester or another firm. After determining that the protester was nonresponsible, award was made to the low bidder based upon the other manufacturer's equipment. The protester contended that: (1) since its equipment was lower priced that that of the other manufacturer, award based on that firm's equipment was improper; (2) its equipment met or exceeded solicitation specifications; (3) the grantee improperly considered its past manufacturing experience, since the solicitation failed to indicate that such experience would be considered; and (4) the grantee was biased in favor of the other manufacturer's equipment. HUD alleged that GAO lacked jurisdiction to consider the protest, and the grantee stated that the protester had not previously manufactured the required units to the size specified and had only been manufacturing larger units for less than 1 year. GAO found that: (1) the protest was for its consideration, since the amount of federal funds involved in the procurement was substantial; (2) the grantee's determination of nonresponsibility was reasonable, since the protester failed to show that it could satisfy the specified performance standards; (3) since the ability of a subcontractor to meet contract requirements concerns bidder responsibility, the grantee properly inquired into the protester's manufacturing experience; and (4) the protester failed to support its assertion that the grantee was biased in favor of the other manufacturer. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.