[Protests Against Army Contract Award for Construction Work]

B-221374,B-221374.2,B-221374.3: May 14, 1986

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Three firms protested an Army Corps of Engineers contract award for housing construction, contending that the award was improper because: (1) the average annual cost in the awardee's initial proposal exceeded the solicitation's cost ceiling; (2) the Army rejected one protester's initial proposal as nonresponsive because of an interest rate contingency; (3) the Army used inflation rates which prejudiced them; and (4) since the cost of the awardee's proposal exceeded each of theirs, it was not in the best interest of the government. GAO held that: (1) a protester has the burden of showing that an agency's method for calculating interest rates was unreasonable; and (2) in negotiated procurements, there is no requirement to award a contract on the basis of lowest price or cost to the government unless the solicitation so specifies. GAO found that: (1) even if the solicitation stated that the Army would not consider proposals in excess of the cost ceiling, it would be unreasonable to apply the cost ceiling to initial proposals; (2) the awardee's proposed costs in its best and final offer were less than specified in the solicitation; and (3) since the nonresponsive firm sent in a revised best and final offer which deleted the interest rate contingency, the matter was rendered academic. Accordingly, the protests were dismissed in part and denied in part.

Oct 19, 2018

Oct 17, 2018

Oct 16, 2018

Oct 15, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here