[Protest of Army Solicitation for Chemical Weapons Disposal Options]

A firm protested two Army contract awards for chemical weapons disposal options, contending that the Army: (1) improperly evaluated its proposal; (2) allowed a firm unable to render impartial and unbiased judgement to serve as the project's subject matter expert; and (3) conducted a flawed cost realism analysis. GAO held that the: (1) Army reasonably selected the lower, technically acceptable bids for award; (2) protester failed to furnish evidence to support its claim that the Army's subject matter expert had a conflict of interest; (3) Army reasonably determined that the awardees' costs were reasonable and appropriate for the different technical approaches proposed; and (4) Army reasonably evaluated the bids in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the protest was denied.