[Request for Reconsideration of Sustained Protest Against Army Contract Award]

The Army requested reconsideration of a decision which sustained a protest against its contract award for telephone systems. GAO had: (1) held that the Army erred in rejecting the protester's bid for a system that required additional equipment to ensure its technical acceptability because it did not inform the protester that the bid was deficient; (2) recommended that the Army not exercise any delivery orders in the option years of the awarded contract. In its request for reconsideration, the Army contended that: (1) since the contracting officer had determined that the protester offered the system in question only as an option, and that the offer did not constitute an alternate bid, it was not required to evaluate that portion of the bid; and (2) GAO could not properly consider the protest based on the entire procurement record, but only on the protester's bid. In addition, the protester requested that GAO clarify its recommendation to specify that the Army should not place any more delivery orders under the awarded contract. GAO held that: (1) it did not consider whether the Army was bound by the contracting officer's conclusion, but whether the protester's bid, as reasonably interpreted, offered the system in question and was technically acceptable; (2) the Army's contentions overlooked the fact that, all through the procurement process, the protester continued to submit revised bid prices for the system in question; and (3) if it modified its recommendation, the Army would not be able to place delivery orders to meet its current-year needs. Accordingly, the original protest and recommendation were affirmed.