[Protest of Army Contract Award for Hardware, Software, and Support Services for Missile Command Programs]
B-234848: Jul 14, 1989
- Full Report:
A firm protested an Army contract award to another firm for support services, contending that the Army: (1) should not have settled a lawsuit that the awardee filed by including the awardee's proposal in the competitive range, since the proposal was deficient; (2) improperly determined that the awardee's proposal was acceptable; (3) erroneously determined that the awardee was responsible, since it failed to conduct a preaward survey and the awardee was not capable of performing; and (4) did not verify that the awardee was a small business. GAO held that the: (1) protester untimely protested the Army's inclusion of the awardee's proposal in the competitive range more than 2 months after the Army settled the lawsuit and more than 1 month after the final bid opening; (2) Army reasonably determined that the awardee's proposal was acceptable and that its employees were committed to performance; (3) Army was not required to conduct a preaward survey and, in any event, it would not interfere with the Army's responsibility determination; and (4) Army reasonably determined in its evaluation that the awardee was a small business and would perform over 50 percent of the contract work. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.