[Protest of Army Contract Award for Plastic Media Blasting System]

A firm protested an Army contract award to another firm for a plastic media blasting system, contending that: (1) the Army improperly determined that the awardee was responsible, given that its own preaward survey recommended against the award; and (2) the Army made the responsibility determination and award in order to avoid the year-end expiration of funds availability. GAO held that, since the protester failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that the Army acted in bad faith, it would not interfere with the Army's responsibility determination. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.