[Protest of Army Contract Award for Instructors]

A firm protested an Army contract award for educational instructor services, contending that the: (1) Army unreasonably evaluated and downgraded its technical bid; (2) solicitation was defective and contained improper specifications; and (3) Army failed to conduct adequate discussions with it. GAO held that the: (1) Army reasonably evaluated and downgraded the protester's technical bid, since the protester failed to provide required information on each proposed employee; (2) protester untimely filed its protest regarding alleged solicitation deficiencies after bid opening; and (3) protester untimely filed its protest regarding the Army's failure to conduct adequate discussions. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.