[Protest of Army Contract Award for Nonaqueous Equipment Decontamination System]

A firm protested an Army contract award to another firm for a decontamination system, contending that the Army: (1) intended to change the specifications when it made the award; (2) failed to conduct a proper cost-realism analysis of the awardee's proposal; (3) engaged in technical levelling or transfusion during discussions with the awardee; and (4) should reimburse it for its proposal and protest preparation costs. GAO held that: (1) the Army based the award on the existing specifications, although it had contemplated possible modifications; (2) it would not consider the portion of the protest concerning the Army's cost-realism analysis since the analysis was reasonable; (3) the possibility of technical levelling or transfusion was nonexistent, since the awardee's offer was always technically acceptable and there was no evidence that the Army disclosed the protester's material to the awardee; and (4) since the protester did not show that the Army violated its proprietary rights, it was not entitled to reimbursement for its protest and proposal preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest and claim were denied.