[Protest of Army Contract Award for Missile Bodies]

A firm protested an Army contract award, arguing that: (1) the Army failed to conduct negotiations with it, although the procurement was negotiated; (2) the awardee lacked the materials and capability to perform the contract; and (3) the awardee's offer was nonresponsive regarding the stated delivery schedule. GAO held that the procurement was negotiated pursuant to agency procurement regulations which require negotiations only if necessary. Further, the solicitation stated that award might be based on initial proposals if there was adequate competition resulting in a reasonable price. GAO also held that the agency's approval of the awardee was tantamount to an affirmative determination of the awardee's capability to perform the contract and to comply with its requirements. The awardee's responsiveness regarding the delivery schedule was not an issue here, since it was not binding on the awardee or the agency. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.