[Protests of Army Corps of Engineers Procurement]

B-216571,B-216571.2,B-216571.3: May 17, 1985

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Three firms protested an Army Corps of Engineers solicitation for roofing services. The first protester contended that: (1) the other two protesters' bids were nonresponsive because they were submitted on improper bid forms; and (2) the contract award should be split among the three protesters because the government would thereby gain the lowest possible price. The second and third protesters, who were the proposed awardees under a multiple award contract, contended that the first protester's bid was qualified and, therefore, nonresponsive. GAO held that: (1) the proposed awardees' bids were responsive despite the improper forms because both awardees acknowledged the solicitation amendment that supplied the correct form; (2) the award could not be split among the protesters because the solicitation provided for a maximum of two awardees; and (3) the responsiveness of the first protester's bid was academic because it was not in line for award. Accordingly, the first protest was denied and the second and third protests were dismissed.