A firm protested the award of a Navy contract for roof repairs. The protester contended that: (1) one of the specifications was unduly restrictive; (2) the product required was only produced by large firms, thus violating the small business set-aside requirement; and (3) the awardee was not a responsible contractor. GAO held that there was not sufficient evidence to overcome the validity of the procuring activity's determination that the product specified was the only acceptable product. As for the contention concerning a violation of the small business set-aside, it was noted that the second tier restriction to small business firms cited by the protester did not apply to construction or service contracts. Finally, the determination of the awardee's responsibility was held to be within the discretion of the contracting officer absent a demonstration of fraud. The protest was denied.
Skip to Highlights