[Protest of Army Contract Award and Request for Reconsideration of Denied Protest]

Two firms protested an Army Missile Command contract award, contending that the awardee's proposed prices were too low to fulfill the requirements of the contract. In addition, one of the protesters contended that the awardee's offer was unbalanced, and the other argued that, since the proposed awardee is the only producer of the product it offered, other offerers were placed at a competitive disadvantage. Since neither protester would have been in line for award if these protests were upheld, they were not interested parties under bid protest procedures; therefore, their protests were dismissed. GAO would not consider one protester's allegation that it was the only technically capable offerer, since this issue should have been raised in the initial protest. In addition, the other protester's argument that the specifications favored the awardee was dismissed as untimely because this protest was not filed prior to the due date for submission of proposals. One protester also requested reconsideration of a prior decision which denied its argument that it was prejudiced by the Army's full distribution of a solicitation amendment. Since the protester failed to show how it was prejudiced by the Army's procedural error, GAO affirmed its prior decision in this regard. Finally, GAO noted that a competitive advantage gained by virtue of a firm's incumbency is not an unfair advantage which must be eliminated. Since no error of fact or law was shown in the initial decision, it was affirmed and the protests were dismissed.