[Protest of Army Solicitation for Refuse Collection Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for refuse collection and disposal services, contending that: (1) certain solicitation specifications were misleading, unduly restrictive, ambiguous, or improper; and (2) it was the low bidder. GAO held that the: (1) protester's allegations of defective specifications were without merit, since it did not show how the specifications were defective; and (2) protester was not sufficiently interested to challenge the Army's evaluation of other bidders, since it was not in line for award. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.