[Protest of Army Contract Award for Mobile Conditioning Chambers]

A firm protested an Army contract award for mobile conditioning chambers, contending that the Army: (1) requested product modifications which exceeded its minimum requirements; (2) failed to conduct adequate discussions; (3) evaluated the awardee's proposal using different technical evaluation criteria; and (4) failed to timely provide notice of award. GAO held that the protester: (1) untimely filed its protest regarding the Army's requirements; (2) was not prejudiced by the Army's failure, during original discussions, to identify a bid deficiency, since the Army required it to revise that portion of its bid; (3) abandoned its protest regarding the allegedly improper technical bid evaluation; and (4) was not prejudiced by the Army's procedural failure to timely provide notice of award. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.