[Protest of Army Corps of Engineers Contract Award for Fire Alarm System Installation]
B-233092: Feb 21, 1989
- Full Report:
A firm protested an Army Corps of Engineers contract award for fire alarm system installation, contending that the: (1) Army should have awarded it the contract as the low bidder; (2) Army failed to hold meaningful discussions, since the Army never advised it of any deficiencies based on the evaluation criteria; (3) awardee's proposal was not technically superior and did not represent the greatest value to the government; (4) Army failed to consider proposed savings in an engineering change proposal it submitted with its proposal; (5) Army's best and final offer (BAFO) request letter arrived late, leaving it less time than other bidders to respond; and (6) Army improperly sent the BAFO request in the same letter transmitting its technical and management questions. GAO held that the: (1) Army properly awarded the contract, since the evaluation criteria included price; (2) Army properly conducted meaningful discussions with its letter containing technical and management questions; (3) protester failed to show that the evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the evaluation scheme; (4) Army properly did not consider the change proposal, since it did not pertain to an existing contract; and (5) protester untimely filed after bid opening its protests against the BAFO letter. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.