[Protest of Army IFB Cancellation]

A firm protested the cancellation of one Army solicitation and the award of a contract to another firm under another solicitation for insulation removal, contending that: (1) the Army improperly cancelled the first solicitation after bid opening; (2) the Army did not allow enough time for bid preparation under the second solicitation; (3) the awardee's bid bond was defective and its bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive; and (4) the awardee had an unfair competitive advantage because it was a subcontractor on work at the same facility. The protester also claimed reimbursement for bid preparation costs. GAO held that: (1) the Army properly cancelled the first solicitation after determining that both of the bids submitted were nonresponsive; (2) the portion of the protest relating to bid preparation time was untimely filed because the protester did not raise the issue prior to bid opening; (3) the awardee submitted two irrevocable letters of credit with its bid that were sufficient to meet the bonding requirements of the second solicitation; (4) the Army was not required to equalize the alleged competitive imbalance because it did not result from unfair government action; and (5) there was no basis upon which to allow the claim for bid preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part, and the claim was denied.