[Protest of Army's Exercise of Contract Option]

A firm protested the Army's exercise of an option to extend the life of a contract for fueling and defueling services which had been awarded competitively following a GAO decision which recommended that the Army procure the requirement competitively rather than extend its contract with the protester. The protester charged that use of the option did not comply with Defense Acquisition Regulations because the contracting officer knew that a lower price was available due to an unsolicited proposal which it had submitted. The contracting officer concluded that the exercise of the contract option was in the best interest of the Government because: (1) injury could result to the competitive bidding process should the option not be exercised; and (2) the benefits of the indefinite quantity type contract negated the benefits of the possible lower price which was informally offered. GAO did not find that the protester's offer precluded the contracting officer from deciding that exercising the option was in the Government's best interest. Further, requiring a new competition would, in effect, be mandating a second competition for the benefit of a firm that made the wrong bidding decision in the first competition. Since GAO found that the protester's offered lower price did not prove that the contracting officer's decision to continue the contract was unreasonable, the protest was denied.