Protest against Award of Contract for Communication Services

The protester alleged that the contract awardee cannot and did not offer to comply with an essential technical performance requirement; that a favorable clause was written into the contract which was not available to other competitors; and that the awardee did not offer to meet and has not met the required service commencement date. The statement by the awardee that it intended to comply could reasonably be construed by the contracting officer as satisfying agency requirements. The agency's negotiation of the contract language did not provide the awardee with an unfair advantage. Although the agency should have issued an amendment relaxing an impossible requirement, the deficiency did not result in prejudice.