B-228168.3:
May 17, 1988
A firm protested an Army contract award for food services, contending that the Army: (1) should have awarded it the contract, since it submitted the low bid; (2) failed to conduct meaningful discussions; (3) improperly failed to consider its satisfactory performance of a prior contract; and (4) intended to modify the contract, giving the awardee an unfair advantage. GAO held that: (1) the Army rea...