B-218359.2: Aug 22, 1985

A firm protested that a Defense Personnel Support Center request for proposals (RFP) was unduly restrictive of competition, contending that the RFP precluded it from offering a product that was equivalent to the brand name product requested. The protester contended that its method of testing drugs: (1) performed as well or better than the system required; and (2) was significantly less expensive t...

B-218359.2: May 6, 1985

A firm requested reconsideration of a prior decision which dismissed its protest against a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) solicitation as untimely. The protester submitted an equal offer in response to the solicitation but its offer was rejected because it failed to meet a test method specification. The protester contended that its test system was functionally equivalent to the system DLA specifie...

B-218359.2: Aug 22, 1985

AGENCY'S SPECIFICATION FOR A DRUG TESTING SYSTEM DOES NOT UNDULY RESTRICT COMPETITION WHERE AGENCY ESTABLISHES PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT THE RESTRICTION IS LEGITIMATELY RELATED TO ITS MINIMUM NEEDS AND PROTESTER. FAILS TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AGENCY'S DECISION TO RESTRICT COMPETITION IS CLEARLY UNREASONABLE. AGENCY IS FULFILLING DUTY TO TAKE STEPS TO INCREASE COMPETITION BY EXPRESSING WILLINGNESS TO...

B-218359.2: May 6, 1985

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - TIMELINESS OF PROTEST - SOLICITATION IMPROPRIETIES - APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING/CLOSING DATE FOR PROPOSALS DIGEST: A PROTEST WHICH IS FILED WITH GAO PRIOR TO AN AMENDED RFP'S CLOSING DATE. IS TIMELY EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL RFP CONTAINED A PROVISION SIMILAR TO THAT PROTESTED IN THE AMENDMENT. SINCE THE AMENDED RFP IS FOR A SUBSEQUENT...