[Protest of Army Solicitation]

A firm protested an Army solicitation and subsequent contract award, contending that: (1) the solicitation was defective; (2) the Army failed to timely notify it of its exclusion from competition; (3) it never received any solicitation amendments after its exclusion from the competitive range; and (4) the awardee could not perform the contract at its proposed prices. GAO held that: (1) the protester untimely filed after bid opening its protest of the defective specifications; (2) the Army's failure to timely notify the protester of its bid's rejection did not constitute a valid basis of protest; (3) the protester was not entitled to receive any solicitation amendments, since it was no longer in the competitive range; and (4) it would not consider the awardee's ability to perform the contract at its proposed price, since it was a matter of bidder responsibility and there was no evidence that the Army acted in bad faith or misapplied definitive responsibility criteria. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.