[Protest of Any Contract Award Under Army IFB for Security Guard Services]

A firm protested any Army contract award for security guard services, contending that: (1) the bid, performance, and payment bonds the solicitation required were unwarranted; (2) the bonding requirements were unduly restrictive of competition and should have been omitted; (3) the solicitation's delivery order limitations were unrealistic and confusing to prospective offerers; and (4) the solicitation was defective because it contained a wage determination which listed 9, instead of 10, paid holidays. GAO noted that: (1) if a party has a direct economic interest in the award of, or failure to award, a contract, it may be considered an interested party to protest; (2) although a bond requirement may restrict competition, it can be a necessary and proper means of securing the fulfillment of a contractor's obligations; and (3) the imposition of bonding requirements is not limited to contractors who will be in possession of valuable government property. GAO found that: (1) the protester had a direct interest in the award and, therefore, was an interested party eligible to protest alleged solicitation deficiencies even though it advised the Army that it would no longer compete under such procurements; (2) a performance bond may be required when it is necessary to protect the government's interest; (3) where a decision to require bonding on other than construction contracts is reasonable, the protester bears the burden of establishing unreasonableness or bad faith; (4) the bonding requirement was justified since previous contractors experienced financial difficulties and did not pay guard employees on time; (5) the fact that the maximum delivery order limitation exceeded the man-hours actually ordered from the protester in a prior contract was understandable in view of the Army's increased guard requirement; and (6) an additional holiday would have no more than a minor impact on the prospective contractor. Accordingly, the protest was denied.