[Protest of Bureau of Public Debt Contract Award for Microfilming Services]

A firm protested a Bureau of Public Debt contract award for microfilming services, contending that: (1) the awarded contract materially differed from the contract that was competitively solicited; and (2) the agency improperly held post-selection discussions with the awardee without notifying the other offerers. GAO found that: (1) after technical evaluations, the agency conducted discussions with each offerer within the competitive range; (2) offerers were advised that the contract starting date could begin in the first option year, but the solicitation was never amended to reflect a new starting date; (3) the agency solicited the contract with a 3- to 5-week base but, after best and final offers, it awarded the contract on a 12-month base year and extended the last option period to the next fiscal year; (4) the agency did not explain when and why it changed the contract period or how it negotiated the changes with the awardee; (5) post-selection discussions concerning the contract period extension should have been conducted with each offerer in the competitive range; and (6) even though the improper post-selection negotiations did not directly affect the awardee's relative standing, each offerer was entitled to equal treatment and an opportunity to revise its proposal. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the second option not be exercised and that the award stand for the approximate period for which the competition was actually conducted.