[Protest of Bid Rejection Under Coast Guard RFP]

A firm protested the rejection of its proposal under a Coast Guard solicitation, contending that: (1) certain solicitation requirements were ambiguous; (2) the Coast Guard was estopped from excluding the protester's proposal from the competitive range based on oral advice given the protester by a Coast Guard official; (3) since the Coast Guard included the protester's proposal in the initial competitive range, it should not have later rejected the proposal as technically unacceptable; (4) certain solicitation specifications were unduly restrictive; and (5) the evaluation scheme for the procurement violated a Department of Transportation (DOT) order on procurement evaluation schemes. GAO held that: (1) the solicitation specification was not ambiguous because it was subject to only one reasonable interpretation; (2) the solicitation specifically cautioned offerers that oral explanations or instructions would not be binding and that there was no basis to include the protester in the competitive range under the doctrine of estoppel; (3) the Coast Guard did not initially reject the protester's proposal because it believed that the protester might suitably modify the proposal and that the establishment of a revised competitive range does not evidence a change in an agency's interpretation of its requirements; (4) the protester did not demonstrate that the allegedly restrictive specification did not reflect the needs of the Coast Guard; and (5) the protest that the Coast Guard did not follow DOT procurement regulations was untimely filed and was, in any case, without merit because the specified DOT order is a guideline rather than a binding directive. Accordingly, the protest was denied.