[Protest of Corps of Engineers Contract Award]

A firm protested the award of a contract to another firm for 200 manufactured/factory-built housing units under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. The protester contended that the awardee's proposal failed to conform to the requirements of the RFP. The agency argued that: (1) the awardee's proposal did conform to the RFP; (2) the relative merits of the awardee's proposal vis-a-vis the protester's proposal were technical judgments of the evaluation team; and (3) the protester failed to demonstrate that the technical evaluation was unreasonable. The protester also alleged that the RFP was ambiguous and that the agency discriminated against its single-family, manufactured housing proposal. Since these allegations were filed after the original protest, the agency held that they were untimely. GAO found that there was doubt as to the date the protester became aware of the basis of the protest, so GAO resolved the timeliness issue in favor of the protester. However, GAO ruled that: (1) the protester's argument about ambiguity in the RFP was without merit because the RFP was not subject to two reasonable interpretations; (2) the protester's allegation of discrimination was based on supposition; and (3) the awardee's proposal conformed to all of the specifications in the RFP. Accordingly, the protest was denied.