[Protest of Army Contract Award for FMS Equipment, Tools, and Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for foreign military sales (FMS) equipment, tools, and services, contending that the: (1) awardee's product did not meet solicitation specifications; (2) Army improperly engaged in technical levelling and provided the awardee an opportunity to correct weaknesses in its bid; and (3) awardee offered two products of foreign origin that should have been subject to a price penalty. GAO held that: (1) the awardee's descriptive literature indicated that its products complied with solicitation specification; (2) the Army reasonably determined that the awardee's products were acceptable; (3) the Army did not provide the awardee an opportunity to correct weaknesses in its bid; (4) discussions with the awardee did not amount to technical levelling; and (5) the Army reasonably relied on the awardee's domestic end product certification, since there was no evidence to question its products' origin. Accordingly, the protest was denied.