[Protest of Army Contract Award for Construction Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for construction services, contending that the Army: (1) improperly evaluated the awardee's past performance; and (2) did not evaluate the proposals in accordance with the awards evaluation criteria. GAO noted that the Army unreasonably determined, based on the experience of one proposed key employee, that the awardee's past performance warranted a high rating. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Army: (1) reevaluate the proposals in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria; (2) terminate the awardee's contract and make award to another bidder, if otherwise appropriate; and (3) reimburse the protester for its protest costs.