B-220557:
Sep 27, 1985
A firm protested a Navy contract award for a security disintegrator, contending that: (1) the awardee's equipment failed to meet minimum safety requirements; (2) its equipment had safety features which were necessary for operation of the equipment; and (3) the Navy improperly failed to consider the cost of modifying the awardee's equipment to meet safety requirements. GAO noted that: (1) in a bran...