https://www.gao.gov/products/121307

B-211589: May 9, 1983

A firm protested an Army contract award under a solicitation for gear sets. The protester contended that the specifications were defective and that the awardee obtained the contract by submitting a below-cost bid and did not have the capability to produce the item. GAO stated that the first allegation concerned an impropriety in the solicitation that was apparent before bid opening and should have...

https://www.gao.gov/products/440007

B-211589: May 9, 1983

PROTEST FILED AFTER AWARD THAT A SOLICITATION SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED A REQUIREMENT FOR FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL TESTING IS UNTIMELY. POSSIBILITY OF A BUY-IN IS NOT A PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF AN AWARD. 3. RICHMOND GEAR CONTENDS THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE DEFECTIVE IN THAT THEY DID NOT REQUIRE FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL TESTING DESPITE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ITEMS BEING PURCHAS...