Protest Alleging Inequitable Evaluation of Proposals

The protester objected to the award of a contract, alleging that its prices were evaluated in an inequitable manner. The solicitation did not necessarily require offerers to submit a "maximum" number ofspare parts, as alleged by the protester. Since the agency initially decided that it would need all the protester's spare parts in the event of an award to the company, the agency was not required to afford the protester an opportunity to reduce the number of spare parts offered. The final award decision reflected the agency's view that the advantage in the protester's technically superior, higher-priced proposal did not outweigh the monetary savings inherent in the present contractor's proposal. There was no basis to conclude that the agency's view was not rational.