[Protests of Army Solicitation for Food Service and Dining Facilities]

Two firms protested certain specifications under an Army small business set-aside solicitation for food services and dining facilities, contending that the: (1) solicitation did not allow adequate time for proposal preparation; (2) Army failed to conduct cost analysis to determine whether to contract for portions of the required services; (3) requirement that all contract personnel speak and understand English was unnecessary; (4) Army failed to include a wage determination for all personnel; and (5) solicitation required full-service facilities at two locations in violation of Army regulations. GAO held that: (1) the Army allowed more than the minimum response time and obtained adequate competition; (2) one protester was not sufficiently interested to protest; (3) the second protester did not show that it was harmed by the Army's failure to conduct a cost comparison; (4) the Army modified the language requirement; (5) the second protester abandoned its protest of the wage determination, since it failed to respond to the Army's report on the issue; and (6) the Army reclassified the protested full-service locations to comply with its regulations. Accordingly, one protest was dismissed, and the other protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.