[Protest of Army Contract Award for Renovation of Transient Housing Facilities]
Highlights
A firm protested an Army contract award to another firm for housing renovations, contending that: (1) the Army improperly deleted a performance bond requirement; (2) the Army changed its instructions to include sales taxes in the bid price; (3) the Army failed to conduct a preaward survey of it; (4) the awardee was not responsible because it was not an interior design firm and did not have a credit rating; and (5) the awardee would not provide the required goods. GAO held that: (1) the portions of the protest regarding the performance bond requirement and the Army's instructions on sales taxes were untimely filed after bid opening; (2) the Army was not required to conduct a preaward survey of the protester because it was not in line for award; (3) it would not consider the protester's challenge of the Army's affirmative responsibility determination; and (4) the matter of whether the awardee actually performed the contract was one of contract administration, which it would not consider. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.