[Protests of Army Contract Awards for Support Services]

Four firms protested an Army contract award for support services, contending that the Army improperly evaluated the bids, since it did not make award to the low, technically acceptable bidder. The first protester also contended that the Army did not evaluate its bid in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. The fourth protester also contended that the Army improperly evaluated its bid under the management factor. GAO held that: (1) the Army reasonably evaluated the first protester's bid in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme; (2) the solicitation required that the Army make award based on a cost/technical tradeoff and cautioned that it would not necessarily make award to the low, technically acceptable bidder; and (3) there was a reasonable possibility that the Army's improper evaluation of the fourth protester's bid deprived it of the opportunity to receive an award. Accordingly the first, second, and third protests were denied and the fourth protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Army: (1) reevaluate the cost realism and most probable cost of the fourth protester's and the third awardee's bids and make award to the protester, if appropriate; and (2) reimburse the fourth protester for its protest costs.