[Protest of Army Corps of Engineers Award of an Incentive Price Revision-Firm Target Contract]

A firm protested an Army Corps of Engineers contract award, contending that its offer was more advantageous and less expensive than that of the awardee. The protester also challenged the agency's evaluation of its proposal and objected to an award to a firm which was not in the local area. Since the solicitation clearly indicated that award would not be made on the basis of the lowest priced offer, any protest concerning the selection method should have been protested before the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. Therefore, the protest that price was not considered the most important factor was untimely. GAO has consistently upheld an award to a technically superior, higher cost offerer so long as the results were consistent with the evaluation criteria and the procuring agency determined that the technical difference was sufficient to outweigh the cost difference. Furthermore, GAO does not object to award to other than the lowest priced offerer where permitted under the request for proposals (RFP). Under the circumstances, GAO found that the decision to award the contract to the awardee was reasonable. In addition, GAO found that the protester failed to prove that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. Finally, GAO found no merit to the allegation that the agency should have awarded the contract to a local firm since no such requirement existed in the RFP. If the protester believed that such a provision should have been in the RFP, it was required to protest this omission prior to the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. Accordingly, the protest was denied.