[Protest of Army Contract Award for Support Services]

A firm protested an Army contract award for environmental support services, contending that the Army: (1) improperly reevaluated the awardee's proposal as to technical writing and improperly reinstated it into the competitive range; (2) improperly considered both proposals to be tied under the performance risk analysis factor; and (3) improperly failed to follow the solicitation's weighted basis for award scheme. GAO held that: (1) the Army reasonably reevaluated the awardee's proposal; (2) the Army's conclusions were reasonably and consistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria; and (3) the Army's post-protest explanation provided a detailed rationale for its decision, which was reasonable. Accordingly, the protests were denied.