[Protest of Army Contract Award for Custodial Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for school custodial services, contending that the: (1) Army did not treat the parties equally in conducting the reprocurement because the Army required it to present its English-speaking supervisory personnel immediately, but gave the awardee 2 weeks to produce qualified personnel; and (2) resolicitation was conducted using different terms and requirements than the first. GAO held that the: (1) record did not support the protester's allegation that the Army demanded that it produce bilingual management personnel immediately; and (2) repurchase need not be conducted in accordance with the terms of the original solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was denied.