[Protest of Army Contract Award for Food Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for full food and dining facility attendant services, contending that the Army improperly: (1) evaluated technical proposals; (2) conducted discussions with the awardee; and (3) participated in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) determination of the awardee's eligibility for award. GAO held that the: (1) Army did not conduct misleading discussions, since the Army advised both bidders that their staffing hours were understated; (2) Army reasonably evaluated awardee's experience and past performance as acceptable based on the combination of the proposed subcontractor's strong past experience in food services and the awardee's own lack of experience in that area; (3) Army reasonably found the awardee's proposal technically acceptable, since the protester stated it would comply with the requirement that at least 50 percent of the cost of personnel incurred be for employees of a small business concern; and (4) Army's submittal of a request to SBA for an 8(a) eligibility determination and the resulting communications between the Army, SBA, and the 8(a) firm concerning SBA requirements for a teaming agreement did not constitute improper discussions. Accordingly, the protest was denied.