[Protest of Terms of Army Solicitation for Operation of Laundry and Dry Cleaning Facility]
B-224933: Dec 12, 1986
- Full Report:
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.