[Protest of Corps of Engineers Solicitation as Unduly Restrictive]

A firm protested a solicitation for dredging services issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and contract award to any other firm, contending that the solicitation specifications were unduly restrictive. The protester's bid had been rejected as nonresponsive because it offered equipment other than that required by the solicitation specifications. A contracting agency has the primary responsibility for determining its minimum needs and the method of accommodating them. GAO will not question such determinations absent evidence that the decisions were arbitrary or unreasonable or that the solicitation specifications were unduly restrictive of competition. In this case, the protester failed to prove that the agency's decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, GAO had no basis to question the agency's decision, and it is not the function of GAO to conduct an independent analysis of the best method available to an agency to accommodate its needs. GAO did note that the agency stated that it will evaluate the results of this contract to determine if the same methodology should be used in future procurements. Accordingly, the protest was denied.