[Protest of Army IFB for Custodial Services]
B-221728: Apr 1, 1986
- Full Report:
A firm protested certain specifications in an Army solicitation for custodial services, contending that: (1) the order in which the Army required the work to be performed was inefficient; (2) the solicitation's service scheduling requirements were ambiguous; and (3) a requirement that certain cleaning tasks be performed within a limited period of time was unreasonable because it would need to keep extra personnel idle in the event that a large task needed to be performed on short notice. GAO held that: (1) the Army had sole discretion to determine its minimum needs; (2) the protester did not allege that the solicitation requirements were unduly restrictive regarding the order in which work was to be performed; (3) the scheduling requirements were not ambiguous or otherwise deficient; and (4) the Army reasonably determined that it needed the services performed within a limited period of time, and it did not prevent the protester from setting its prices to ensure that it could meet the requirement. Accordingly, the protest was denied.