Protest of Army Contract Award to Competitor

A company protested the award of a requirements contract for the monitoring of radio and television broadcasts emanating from four cities. The protester, the second low bidder and incumbent contractor, presented four grounds of protest: (1) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive to the solicitation; (2) the awardee was not responsible; (3) the awardee had conspicuously and continuously neglected its contractual obligations; and (4) the awardee's bid contained misrepresentations of fact significant enough to warrant contract termination. A bid that does not reduce, limit, or modify a requirement is responsive to the IFB. An allegation based on evidence discovered after bid opening but prior to award that the prospective contractor does not intend to perform in the manner indicated in its bid is a matter that bears on bidder responsibility, not bid responsiveness. The provision requiring the prospective contractor to furnish "acceptable evidence" of a commitment or explicit arrangement between it and a subcontractor relates to the matter of bidder responsibility and GAO does not review affirmative determinations of responsibility except under circumstances not applicable in this case. The allegation that the awardee neglected its contractual duties is a matter of contract administration which is not for GAO to resolve. The protest asserting that the contract should be cancelled was denied because the record indicated that the contracting officer did not rely on the alleged misrepresentations when making the contract award. Accordingly, the protest was denied.