[Protest of Army Contract Award for Hardware, Software, and Support Services for Missile Command Programs]

B-234848: Jul 14, 1989

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

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.

Jan 23, 2020

Jan 21, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here