[Protest of Army Contract Award for Remote Target System Equipment and Support Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for remote target systems support and repair services, contending that the Army: (1) unreasonably downgraded its bid; (2) failed to hold meaningful discussions with it; and (3) improperly retained its bid in the competitive range when it had no chance of award. GAO held that the Army: (1) properly considered the protester's lack of experience in its technical proposal evaluation; (2) reasonably downgraded the protester's technical proposal, since the protester failed to provide sufficient detail relating to its production capabilities; (3) held meaningful discussions with the protester regarding its past performance; and (4) properly retained the protester's technically acceptable bid in the competitive range. Accordingly, the protest was denied.