[Protests of Army Contract Awards for Engineering Services]

A firm protested two Army contract awards for engineering services, contending that the Army: (1) violated regulations concerning organizational conflicts of interest; (2) awarded the contracts to firms which could not meet the requirements at their bid prices; (3) improperly evaluated its bid; and (4) improperly characterized the solicitations as contemplating service contracts. GAO held that, under the first solicitation, the Army: (1) did not violate conflict-of-interest regulations, since the contract did not lead to future competitive production; (2) did not improperly characterize the solicitation, since it requested development of a prototype which it planned to produce; and (3) reasonably downgraded the protester's bid, since it offered a riskier managerial approach. GAO also held that the: (1) awardee's ability to perform at its bid price was a matter of responsibility not subject to GAO review; (2) protester lacked sufficient interest to challenge the second contract award, since it was not in line for award; and (3) protester untimely filed its protests concerning solicitation improprieties. Accordingly, the first protest was denied in part and dismissed in part, and the second protest was dismissed.