[Protest of Army Issuance of Delivery Order for Automatic Dishwasher]

A firm protested the Army's issuance of a delivery order for a dishwasher and the rejection of its bid because the models it offered lacked a number of required features. The protester contended that: (1) the models it offered met the request for quotation (RFQ) requirements; (2) the Army erred in the evaluation of its technical data; (3) its models did not need to have the same design characteristics as the brand name item solicited; (4) the awardee's offer should not have been accepted because it did not submit appropriate literature and its model was not compliant with the RFQ specifications; (5) it was not given the same opportunity to explain its technical literature that the awardee received; and (6) the awardee will not supply the type of dishwasher called for by the RFQ. GAO found that: (1) the Army's determination that the products that the protester offered were unacceptable and its evaluation of the technical literature were reasonable; (2) the design characteristics of the brand name product were a solicitation requirement; (3) there was no support to the protester's argument that the awardee's product failed to meet the RFQ specifications or that it failed to submit appropriate literature; (4) the Army was not required to hold discussions with bidders that it found nonresponsive; and (5) the allegation that the awardee's performance may have violated a contract term involved a matter of contract administration and, therefore, was not for GAO consideration. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.