[Protest of Army Decision To Resolicit Requirement]

A firm protested an Army decision to resolicit a requirement for maintenance services after it terminated a contract awarded under a prior solicitation for the services. The protester contended that it should have received the award under the original solicitation as the only technically acceptable offerer. The Army canceled the original solicitation after it found the protester's contention that the awardee did not have the requisite experience to be correct. The Army then reviewed its needs and found that the experience requirement was unnecessary; therefore, it resolicited the procurement and eliminated the requirement to maximize competition and reflect the actual minimum needs of the Government. The protester alleged that the Government's needs would not be adequately protected without the experience requirement. However, absent evidence of possible fraud or willful misconduct on the part of Government officials, GAO does not review allegations that more restrictive requirements should be used. In this case, the protester failed to establish that the Army was guilty of fraud or misconduct. The fact that the prices of the offerers have been exposed does not prevent an agency from resoliciting on the basis of its minimum needs. Since the requirement was resolicited, GAO found that other protester complaints of procurement improprieties were academic. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.