[Protest of Army Rejection of Bid for Food Testing and Analysis]

A firm protested the Army's rejection of its bid and subsequent contract award for food testing and analysis, contending that the Army: (1) did not give it sufficient credit as the incumbent contractor; (2) improperly eliminated its bid from the competitive range; (3) failed to hold discussions with it; (4) should have made award to it, since it was the low bidder; and (5) acted in bad faith. GAO held that: (1) the Army reasonably evaluated the protester's bid and considered its incumbency under two related subfactors; (2) the solicitation did not provide a separate experience evaluation factor; (3) the Army was not required to hold discussions with the protester; (4) the Army properly excluded the protester's bid from the competitive range; (5) the protester untimely filed after bid opening its allegations of solicitation improprieties; (6) the Army properly made award to the bidder who offered the best value; and (7) there was no evidence that the Army acted in bad faith or that the protester was prejudiced by any of the Army's actions. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.