[Protest of Army Contract Award for Protective Masks]

A firm protested an Army contract award for protective masks, contending that the Army did not evaluate proposals consistently with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. GAO held that the: (1) solicitation did not indicate that any one of three evaluation criteria would be considered more important; (2) Army improperly weighted technical factors over cost and production capability factors; and (3) protester was entitled to reimbursement for its bid and protest preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Army: (1) terminate its contract with the awardee; and (2) resolicit using the awardee's design and a revised technical data package.