[Protests of Army Contract Award for Muzzle Velocity Systems]

A firm protested an Army contract award for muzzle velocity systems, contending that the: (1) Army improperly made award to the awardee, since its product failed to meet some of the solicitation's testing requirements; and (2) Army's retesting plan was inadequate. GAO held that the protester: (1) failed to show that the Army's evaluation of the awardee's bid was improper; and (2) untimely filed its protest of the Army's retesting plan more than 10 working days after it learned the basis of protest. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.