[Protest of Army Contract Award]

A firm protested an Army contract award, alleging that: (1) the Army failed to include life-cycle costs in its proposal evaluation criteria as indicated in the request for proposals (RFP); (2) the related clause in the RFP was ambiguous; (3) life-cycle costs should have been evaluated regardless of the RFP provisions; and (4) the Army failed to conduct necessary product performance testing. The Army contended that the RFP did not require evaluation of life-cycle costs or performance testing. GAO determined that: (1) the only reasonable interpretation of the life-cycle cost clause was that the Army had already taken these costs into consideration when determining its needs; (2) for an ambiguity to exist, there must be at least two reasonable interpretations of a requirement; and (3) the allegation that the costs should have been evaluated despite such a requirement was untimely and not for consideration. Regarding the Army's failure to perform testing, GAO found that the solicitation did not contain such a requirement and, since this aspect of the protest questioned an alleged impropriety in the solicitation, it was untimely. Finally, the protester asserted that the absence of such testing made it impossible for the agency to evaluate the contractor's ability, which is a matter of responsibility. GAO will not review affirmative determinations of responsibility except under circumstances not presented here. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part, and the protester's claim for bid preparation costs was denied.