[Protest of Army Contract Award for Telephone Answering System]

A firm protested an Army contract award for a telephone answering system, contending that: (1) the Army improperly awarded a 100-percent small business set-aside to a large business; and (2) the awardee misrepresented itself as a small business for the purpose of the procurement. GAO noted that the awardee claimed that less than 10 percent of its offered price represented supplies manufactured by large businesses. GAO held that: (1) since the Army determined that urgency necessitated making award without giving the protester notice of the award, the award was valid; (2) the Army should consider contract termination since the Small Business Administration determined that the awardee was not a small business and therefore not eligible for the 100-percent small business set-aside; (3) the protester was not prejudiced by the continuation of the contract award, since the Army would have resolicited the contract on an unrestricted basis due to the protester's unreasonably high bid; and (4) since the protester did not prove that the awardee misrepresented its small business size, there was no basis to question the award. Accordingly, the protest was denied.