[Protest Against Air Force Contract Award for Carpet]

A firm protested an Air Force contract award, contending that: (1) the awardee's proposal did not meet the requirements of the solicitation and should have been rejected; and (2) the Air Force held discussions with the awardee without allowing other offerers an opportunity to revise or modify their proposals. The protester initially argued that awards to three other offerers were improper; however, the protest was filed 6 months following the awards. GAO found that: (1) the protest was untimely since it was not filed within 10 working days after the basis of protest was known; (2) there was no evidence that the protester sought information to determine whether a basis of protest existed; and (3) the protester was not an interested party with regard to reaward of portions of contracts originally awarded to other firms. GAO found that: (1) the brand name specification was satisfied by the awardee's description of a product that was consistent with the examples stated in the solicitation; and (2) the protester's contention that discussions were improperly held with the awardee to furnish additional brand name information was academic and need not be considered. However, GAO sustained a portion of the protest which stated that the awardee did not furnish a description of the product offered on each item or subitem in the solicitation. GAO has held that it is improper for an agency to depart in any material way from the evaluation plan described in the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part, dismissed in part, and sustained in part.