[Protest of Army Contract Award for Facility Design and Construction]

A firm protested an Army contract award to another firm for facility design and construction, contending that the Army: (1) should have awarded it the contract, since it offered the low bid; (2) allowed the awardee to correct its bid, which constituted improper discussions; and (3) should have held discussions with all offerers. GAO held that: (1) the Army reasonably determined that the awardee's bid contained a minor clerical error; (2) allowing the awardee to correct the error did not constitute discussions; and (3) the protester's proposal deviated substantially from the solicitation's technical requirements. Accordingly, the protest was denied.