[Protest of Proposed Army Contract Award for Operation of Dry Cleaning Facility]

B-220028: Dec 26, 1985

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested a proposed Army contract award to another firm for the operation of a dry cleaning facility, contending that it would be underbid because the solicitation did not incorporate the minimum wage rate contained in a collective bargaining agreement that the protester, the incumbent contractor, negotiated with its employees and no other bidder would be obligated to pay the higher wage rate. GAO held that: (1) the Army was not required to incorporate the collective bargaining agreement into the solicitation because the agreement became effective after the protester's contract expired and no work was performed pursuant to the agreement under the old contract; and (2) it would not consider the matter further because any disagreement between the protester and the Army over the incorporated wage rate determination was for resolution by the Department of Labor. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.