[Protest of DLA Contract Award]
B-212703,B-212703.2: Sep 25, 1984
- Full Report:
Two firms protested the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract for surgical instruments. The first protester contended that the awardee could not provide the item at the agreed upon price and that the awardee's price was excessive. Further, the firm objected to the inclusion in the RFP of a clause giving the government the right to select samples of the item for testing. GAO found that: (1) whether an awardee is able to perform a contract in accordance with its terms and whether it will in fact do so are matters of responsibility and contract administration, respectively, which GAO will not generally review; (2) there was no basis upon which to question the reasonableness of the awardee's prices; and (3) the RFP clause which the protester objected to met a legitimate agency requirement. The second protester contended that: (1) the awardee's proposal was not acceptable as initially submitted, but was improperly revised following discussions; (2) the awardee's proposal was not evaluated in accordance with the RFP; and (3) DLA improperly refused to consider it eligible for a labor surplus area (LSA) evaluation preference. DLA argued that the protester did not timely file its protest to the agency or to GAO and did not diligently pursue its protest under the Freedom of Information Act. GAO found that: (1) the protest regarding the protester's eligibility for an LSA evaluation preference was untimely filed; (2) the protester pursued its protest with due diligence; (3) DLA correctly evaluated the awardee's proposal; and (4) DLA did not hold discussions with the protester. Accordingly, the protests were denied in part and dismissed in part.