[Protest of Army Contract Award for Amusement Vending Machines]

A firm protested an Army contract award for amusement vending machines, contending that the Army deliberately excluded it from competition. GAO found that: (1) when the Army issued the solicitation, the protester was performing the required services on another contract with renewal options; (2) the base contract period of the solicitation under protest overlapped the final option year of the protester's contract, but the protester received a copy of the solicitation with the postponed date for receipt of proposals; and (3) although there was no record that the protester inquired about the status of the solicitation, the final change for submission of offers was sent to all bidders on the mailing list. GAO held that: (1) a protester bears the risk of not receiving a final solicitation amendment; (2) the fact that the initial amendment only postponed the date for receipt of proposals indicated that the procurement was still in process; and (3) although the protester failed to receive copies of the amendments, there was no basis to conclude that the Army attempted to preclude the protester from competition. Accordingly, the protest was denied.