[Protest of Army Contract Awards for 155mm Projectile Copper Cones]

A firm protested Army contract awards to two other firms under a restricted solicitation for projectile cones. The Army limited the procurement to planned producers of the cones. The protester contended that: (1) the awardees did not submit required cost and pricing data; (2) one awardee submitted an inadequate small business subcontracting plan; (3) the same awardee failed to certify that it was not suspended or debarred; (4) neither awardee complied with a requirement that bidders provide prices for quantity ranges; (5) the Army must have held discussions with the awardees on the delivery schedule, because it delayed the award for 2 months but did not delay the delivery schedule; (6) the Army should have awarded it a contract in order to maintain the mobilization base, because without an award it would go out of business; and (7) both awardees' agreements to serve as planned producers had expired before bid opening. GAO held that: (1) the awardees actually did submit the cost and pricing data; (2) the allegations about the subcontracting plan and eligibility certification were matters of the awardee's responsibility, which it would not consider absent circumstances not relevant to the instant procurement; (3) the awardees properly bid on quantity ranges; (4) the record supported the Army's assertion that it did not conduct any discussions; (5) the portion of the protest relating to the Army's failure to maintain the protester as a planned producer was untimely filed; (6) in any event, the Army had sole discretion to determine how many firms to keep in active production to meet its mobilization needs; and (7) the Army determined not to renew any planned-producer agreements, including the protester's, pending the completion of an industrial planning study. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.