[Protest of Army Contract Award for Pyrotechnic Support Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for engineering and technical services, contending that the Army: (1) unreasonably evaluated its proposal; (2) accepted its first best and final offer; (3) untimely advised it of its proposal deficiencies; (4) was not authorized to reopen discussions 6 months after receiving best and final offers; and (5) failed to respond to its questions. GAO held that the: (1) Army reasonably found the protester's proposal unacceptable, since the protester refused to offer fixed labor rates; and (2) protester untimely protested the other alleged improprieties. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.