Protest Based on Bidder Responsibility and Responsiveness and Procurement Procedures

A protester to a contract award contended that the awardee could not satisfy the responsibility criteria of the solicitation, was nonresponsive, and its bid was unbalanced; that solicitation was prejudicial; and that the agency's actions in obtaining bid extensions from the two bidders were unfair. Specifications in the solicitation were not definitive responsibility criteria but related to technical acceptability. The protest concerning failure of awardee's proposal to comply with a requirement of the solicitation was untimely and the protester did not show that another requirement was not satisfied. An allegation that the agency treated offerors unequally was not substantiated. Disclosure in second-step solicitation of equipment which offerors proposed in first-step was not a proper procedure. The awardee's bid was not regarded as mathematically unbalanced. The argument concerning extension of the bid acceptance period was without merit since the protester had the same right as the awardee.