[Protest of Army Contract Award for Equipment Maintenance and Repair Services]

B-271065,B-271065.2: Jun 12, 1996

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested an Army contract award for equipment maintenance and repair services, contending that the: (1) Army improperly evaluated the technical and cost proposals; (2) upward adjustment of its cost proposal was unreasonable; (3) Army should have downgraded the awardee's technical proposal in certain areas; and (4) Army failed to evaluate the risks associated with the awardee's subcontracting plan. GAO held that the: (1) Army's cost-technical tradeoff was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation methodology; (2) Army properly adjusted the protester's cost proposal to include certain specified costs; (3) Army reasonably determined that the awardee's subcontracting approach posed no significant risk; and (4) Army downgraded the protester's technical proposal, since the protester had insufficient staff to perform the required work. Accordingly, the protest was denied.