[Protest of Responsiveness of Bids of Proposed Awardees Under Army IFB]

A firm protested a proposed Army contract award under a brand-name-or-equal solicitation for automatic data processing systems, contending that the products offered by two proposed awardees under two schedules were not responsive to the specified performance criteria. After the protest, the Army found that one item did not meet the solicitation's salient characteristics, and intended to terminate that portion of the contract, resolicit the item, and award the contract for the remaining items in the schedule. The protester contended that this action would violate bidding principles. GAO found that the protester: (1) failed to show that an item offered under the other schedule failed to meet specifications; and (2) was not sufficiently interested to protest because it was not in line for award under either schedule. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.