[Protest of Army Contract Award for Communications Equipment Instruction Courses]

A firm protested an Army contract award for updating and developing satellite communications equipment instruction courses, contending that the Army fraudulently determined that the awardee was responsible because the: (1) awardee did not meet Army criteria for corporate experience; (2) Army knew the awardee had been in existence for only 3 days prior to the bid closing date; (3) Army should have conducted a preaward survey; and (4) Army should have referred the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA). GAO found that: (1) corporate experience was an Army criterion for assessing the merits of individual proposals and not a responsibility criterion; (2) allegations that the Army's determination was based on fraud or bad faith were without merit because the record showed that the Army considered the awardee's pre-incorporation experience and its proposed subcontractor experience; (3) a preaward survey is not a legal prerequisite to an affirmative responsibility determination; and (4) an agency must refer a responsibility question to SBA only when a small business is found nonresponsible. Accordingly, the protest was denied.