[Protest of Navy's Partial Rejection of Bid]

A firm protested the Navy's partial rejection of its bid for fixed and rollable scaffolding, contending that: (1) the Navy did not properly evaluate its price for the fixed scaffolding; (2) the Navy lacked a cogent and compelling reason to justify its failure to award this item; and (3) since its bid was on an all-or-none basis, it was entitled to a contract for the fixed scaffolding as well as the rollable scaffolding. GAO noted that: (1) the protester submitted the only bid under the solicitation; (2) the protester was awarded a contract for the rollable scaffolding; and (3) the Navy rejected the protester's bid for the fixed scaffolding because the offered price for the item was unreasonable. The Navy argued that the protester should have been put on notice that its bid was not considered to contain an all-or-none qualification when the partial award for the rollable scaffolding was made. GAO found that: (1) the protester's acceptance of the partial award was inconsistent with its allegation that it qualified its bid on an all-or-none basis; (2) the protester did not raise its bid qualification in a timely manner; and (3) the Navy's actions were inconsistent with the all-or-none interpretation of the bid but, since the protester did not raise this issue within 10 working days of the award date, it would not be considered. GAO also found that: (1) the protester did not learn of the basis for bid rejection until recently; (2) the protest challenging the unreasonable bid price determination was timely filed within 10 working days of receipt of the Navy's price analysis; (3) a price determination involves the contracting officer's broad discretion and will not be disturbed absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith; (4) there was nothing improper in the Navy's price analysis; and (5) the protester failed to show that the contracting officer abused her discretion in any manner. Accordingly, the protest was denied.