Two firms protested a Navy contract award to another firm for an automated weapons parts storage system, contending that the awardee did not have sufficient experience to perform the contract. The first protester also contended that the Navy excluded its proposal from the competitive range, even though its equipment met the solicitation requirements, because of the Navy's bias toward the awardee's...

WHERE A PROPOSAL FOR AN AUTOMATED WEAPONS PARTS STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE HOW IT WILL MEET SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS. AGENCY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY AN OFFEROR OF DEFICIENCIES REMAINING IN ITS PROPOSAL AFTER IT HAS HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND TO THE AGENCY'S QUESTIONS. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REGARDS THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION THAT ITS LOW SCORE WAS DUE TO BIA...