[Protest of Terms of Army Solicitation for Operation of Laundry and Dry Cleaning Facility]

B-224933: Dec 12, 1986

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested an Army solicitation for the operation of a laundry and dry cleaning facility, contending that: (1) the Army's prices were too low to cover the operating costs since the Army improperly used appropriated funds to subsidize the costs; (2) the disparity between actual costs and the individual piece-rate prices the Army set violated regulations; (3) the incumbent contractor had an unfair competitive advantage because it alone knew the full impact of the individual piece rate work; and (4) the Army failed to conduct price reviews for the current contract. GAO held that: (1) it would not review the Army's pricing procedures since that was a matter of Army policy; (2) the protester did not show that the Army's actions resulted in a competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor; (3) the contention that the Army failed to review individual piece-rate prices was a matter of contract administration; and (4) the protester's use of subcontracted work, not the Army's use of appropriated funds, resulted in higher costs. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Jan 21, 2021

Jan 19, 2021

Jan 14, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here