Skip to main content

[Protest of Army Contract Award]

B-214715 Published: Jan 03, 1985. Publicly Released: Jan 03, 1985.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested an Army contract award, contending that, during evaluation, the Army should have determined whether its equipment satisfied the performance requirements of the brand name equipment described in the solicitation. Because the Army found that the protester's product deviated from the solicitation specifications, its bid was rejected and award was made to a higher-priced offerer. The Army contended that, because the awardee's product promised a longer life cycle and lower maintenance costs, the award was economically justified despite the initial cost. GAO found that the product the protester offered failed to conform with a number of the salient features described in the solicitation. Therefore, the Army's rejection of the offer was justified. Since any protest against the propriety of the specifications should have been filed prior to the closing date for the receipt of quotations, the protest was untimely. Furthermore, GAO does not question an agency's determination of its minimum needs unless it is shown that contracting officers acted in bad faith or that the determination lacked a reasonable basis. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Army procurementBid evaluation protestsBid rejection protestsBrand name specificationsContract award protestsContract costsMultiple award procurementUntimely protestsU.S. Army