[Protest of Army Contract Award for Engineering and Technical Support]

B-255293.4: Apr 15, 1994

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm protested an Army contract award for engineering and technical support services, contending that the Army: (1) did not properly evaluate its bid in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria; (2) did not properly document its award decision; (3) should have excluded the awardee's bid from the competition, since it had a conflict of interest; (4) failed to take action against an improper awardee action; (5) improperly ignored price as an evaluation factor; (6) failed to use the solicitation's specified evaluation approach; and (7) did not conduct meaningful discussions with it regarding its bid deficiencies. GAO held that: (1) the protester failed to provide any evidence to support its allegations that the Army's evaluation and award decision was improper or that the awardee had an conflict of interest; (2) it would not consider the alleged improper awardee action, since the issue was outside of its jurisdiction; (3) the Army properly considered price in its evaluation and made award to the higher-priced, technically superior bidder; (4) the protester was not adversely affected by the Army's evaluation scheme; and (5) the Army was not required to hold discussions, since it did not find any material deficiencies in the protester's bid. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.