[Protest of Proposed Army Contract Award to Any Other Offerer]
B-216953: Mar 22, 1985
- Full Report:
A firm protested a contract award to any other firm under an Army solicitation for hand grenade parts, contending that: (1) the Army acted arbitrarily and capriciously in amending the solicitation after the disclosure of initial proposals; (2) the contract award should be based on initial proposals rather than on the outcome of negotiations; (3) the procurement should have been advertised rather than negotiated; (4) the Army did not issue a proper solicitation amendment because it transmitted the amendment to bidders telegraphically; and (5) the Army may have improperly disclosed its bid price. The protester also claimed reimbursement for its proposal preparation costs. GAO held that: (1) the protester's contentions regarding the type of procurement and the transmission of the solicitation amendment were untimely filed; (2) while the Army had the discretionary authority to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals, it was not required to do so; (3) the Army properly amended the solicitation because the quantity increase under the amendment was a substantial change in the solicitation requirements; (4) there was no reason to believe that the Army improperly disclosed the protester's bid price; and (5) given the failure of the protest, there was no basis upon which to reimburse the protester for its proposal preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part and the claim was denied.