[Protest of Proposed Army Contract Award for Infrared Jammers]

A firm protested a proposed Army contract award for infrared jammers and other end items, contending that: (1) the award may be subject to later claims or equitable adjustment due to the awardee's absence of drawings; (2) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because it indicated that it would not require additional industrial facilities or special equipment to perform the contract; and (3) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because it noted that some of its items were not separately priced instead of indicating numerical prices. GAO has held that: (1) speculation that an awardee may later submit a claim for adjustment is a matter of contract administration and not for resolution under protest regulations; (2) the ability to perform a contract and whether a bidder has the capacity to perform are matters of responsibility, which GAO will not review absent a show of bad faith; and (3) a notation of non-separate pricing equates with zero dollar figure costs and indicates the bidder's affirmative intent to obligate itself to provide the items at no charge to the government. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.