[Protest of Army Contract Award for Collective Protection Equipment and Parts]

A firm protested an Army contract award for collective protection equipment and parts, contending that: (1) the Army did not follow competitive procurement procedures; (2) it was placed at a competitive disadvantage; and (3) the contract was awarded improperly. GAO held that the protester: (1) had prior notice that the Army had awarded a portion of the contract to the other firm; (2) untimely filed its protest more than 10 working days after it knew the basis of protest; and (3) was not an interested party to protest the contract award, since it did not qualify as an actual offeror under the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.