[Protest of Army Delivery Order for Furniture]

A firm protested an Army contract award for furniture, contending that the: (1) Army erroneously found its proposal technically unacceptable, since the alleged bid discrepancies were minor; and (2) solicitation's technical requirements were unduly restrictive. GAO held that the: (1) Army properly rejected the protester's bid, since it deviated from the technical specifications; (2) protester untimely filed its protest against the allegedly restrictive specifications; and (3) protest against the specifications was not of sufficient interest to warrant consideration as a significant issue. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.