[Protests of Army Contract Award for Night Vision Devices]
B-229921,B-229921.2,B-229921.3,B-229921.4,B-229921.5: May 10, 1988
- Full Report:
Two firms protested an Army contract award for night vision devices, contending that the: (1) Army's award of the entire requirement to one offerer was inconsistent with its stated aim of maintaining long-term competition; and (2) Army failed to consider the awardee's performance delays under prior contracts in evaluating its proposal. The first protester further contended that the: (1) Army failed to disclose certain relevant information to all offerers; (2) contracting officer orally awarded it a percentage of the requirement; (3) Army failed to appropriately weight certain aspects of its technical proposal; and (4) Army should have requested additional rounds of best and final offers after the preaward survey of its facilities. The second protester also contended that the Army should have awarded the contract to the low technically equal offerer. GAO held that the: (1) Army was not required to make less than a complete award to the offerer whose proposal was most advantageous; (2) awardee took measures to correct its prior production shortfalls; (3) Army was not required to provide technical information which it did not have during competition; (4) the first protester failed to support its allegation that the Army made an oral award; (5) Army was not required to request additional rounds of best and final offers, since the protester's bid was technically acceptable; and (6) second protester failed to show that the Army's evaluation of its bid was unreasonable. Accordingly, the protests were denied.