[Protest Against Army Rejection of Bid for Protective Coverings]

A firm protested the Army's rejection of its low bid for personnel protective coverings, contending that the Army: (1) improperly applied a domestic-item restriction in rejecting its bid, since the solicitation did not contain the restriction; (2) should have either awarded it the contract or cancelled the solicitation; and (3) should reimburse it for its bid and protest preparation costs. GAO held that: (1) the Army properly determined that the restriction applied to the coverings; (2) cancellation of the solicitation and resolicitation would not benefit the protester, since it did not contend that it could offer a domestic item; and (3) the protester was not entitled to reimbursement for its bid and protest preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest and the claim were denied.