[Protest of DGSC Contract Award for Insecticide]

A firm protested the Defense General Supply Center's (DGSC) rejection of its bid as nonresponsive and subsequent contract award for an insecticide, contending that: (1) DGSC should not have considered the descriptive literature it submitted with its bid, since the information was not required; (2) its bid cover letter agreed to all terms and conditions of the solicitation; (3) DGSC should have made award to it, since it was the low bidder; (4) the awardee had not previously supplied the product; and (5) the awardee was not a small disadvantaged business as required by the solicitation. GAO held that: (1) DGSC properly considered the protester's descriptive material, since it described the product offered; (2) DGSC properly rejected the protester's bid, since its product did not comply with the solicitation's material requirement; (3) the protester's cover letter did not cure its failure to comply with all solicitation specifications; (4) it did not have jurisdiction to review the awardee's eligibility for a small business set-aside; and (5) it would not review the DGSC responsibility determination without a showing of fraud or bad faith on the part of DGSC. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.