[Protests of Army Contract Award for Test and Automotive Services]

B-241759,B-241759.2,B-241759.3: Mar 5, 1991

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Two firms protested the Army's procurement of test and automotive services. One protester contended that the solicitation: (1) should have included a small-disadvantaged-business preference; and (2) included an incorrect standard industrial classification code. The second protester contended that the: (1) Army changed solicitation requirements after evaluating initial proposals without issuing an amendment or informing those in the competitive range; (2) awardee included improper cost information in its technical proposal; (3) Army failed to conduct a cost realism analysis of the awardee's bid; and (4) Army failed to follow the specified evaluation scheme. GAO held that: (1) the protester untimely filed its protests regarding alleged solicitation improprieties; (2) all offerors were aware of the changed requirements; (3) there was no improper cost information in the awardee's technical proposal; (4) the Army conducted an initial proposal cost analysis report and a best and final offer cost analysis report; and (5) the Army's alleged failure to follow evaluation standards concerned internal agency instructions and did not provide a basis for questioning the validity of award. Accordingly, the protests regarding solicitation specifications were dismissed, and the protests regarding changed solicitation requirements, cost realism analyses, and evaluation schemes were denied.