[Protest of Proposed Air Force Contract Award for Chemical Warfare Protective Hoods]

A firm protested two proposed Air Force small business set-aside contract awards for chemical warfare protective hoods, contending that: (1) one awardee could furnish a noncomplying product under the unrestricted portion of the solicitation; (2) the Air Force improperly afforded one awardee a labor-surplus preference; and (3) one awardee's initial offer under the non-set-aside portion had expired, rendering it ineligible for award. GAO held that the: (1) matter of the awardee's performance was the Air Force's responsibility; (2) protester was not an interested party; and (3) protester did not certify that it qualified as a labor-surplus concern. Accordingly, the protests were dismissed.