[Protests of Army Contract Award for Engineering and Maintenance Services]

Two firms protested an Army contract award for engineering and maintenance services, contending that the: (1) Army unreasonably evaluated one protester's technical proposal and misrepresented that protester's past performance history in bad faith; (2) Army unreasonably evaluated the awardee's and the second protester's technical and cost proposals; and (3) awardee proposed one key employee without proper authorization to use that individual's name. GAO held that: (1) there was no evidence that the contract administrator or any other Army official misrepresented the first protester's past performance or that the past performance evaluation affected that protester's score under the general management evaluation factor; (2) the Army reasonably evaluated the protesters' and the awardee's technical proposals; (3) the evidence showed that the awardee proposed the key employee in good faith and that no intent to bait and switch existed; and (4) the Army performed a reasonable cost realism analysis. Accordingly, the protests were denied.