[Protest of Army Contract Award for Food Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for food services, contending that the Army: (1) should have awarded it the contract, since it submitted the low bid; (2) failed to conduct meaningful discussions; (3) improperly failed to consider its satisfactory performance of a prior contract; and (4) intended to modify the contract, giving the awardee an unfair advantage. GAO held that: (1) the Army reasonably concluded that the awardee's technical advantages outweighed the protester's low bid; (2) the Army notified the protester of its bid deficiencies; (3) the Army properly evaluated the protester's bid, since the evaluation criteria did not include prior contract performance, and the protester's bid did not contain such information; and (4) it would not consider the matter of the proposed modifications, since that concerned contract administration. Accordingly, the protest was denied.