[Protest of Army Solicitation]

B-259582: Feb 3, 1995

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

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.

Oct 29, 2020

Oct 28, 2020

Oct 27, 2020

  • Silver Investments, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here