[Protests Under Two DLA Solicitations]

Two firms filed similar protests against two Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) contract awards for personnel equipment, contending that DLA: (1) erroneously determined that legislation authorizing payment of a price differential for relieving economic dislocations in a labor surplus area (LSA) had expired; and (2) application of an LSA price differential in its bid evaluations would have resulted in award to them. GAO found that: (1) the program permitting a price differential for LSA bids expired at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1985 and Congress did not extend it under the FY 1986 continuing appropriations; (2) although DLA solicited and opened the bids during FY 1985, it did not award the contracts until after FY 1985 expiration; and (3) DLA properly refused to apply the price differential in its bid evaluations because the statutory authority to do so had expired. Accordingly, both protests were denied.