[Protest of Army Decision To Exercise Contract Option]

A firm protested the Army's decision to exercise a contract option to procure an additional quantity of fuzes, contending that the Army: (1) improperly based its decision on an informal price analysis when it should have resolicited the requirement; (2) neglected to advertise its intent to exercise the option; and (3) failed to stop work on the contract after receipt of the protest. GAO held that exercise of the option was proper, since: (1) there was no reason to question the propriety or sufficiency of the price analysis; (2) the Army was not required to provide notification of actions taken under an existing contract; and (3) the stay provision cited by the protester was not applicable to the exercise of contract options. Accordingly, the protest was denied.