Protest Alleging Awardee Does Not Meet Solicitation Experience Requirement

A firm protested the award of a contract contending that the low bidder and second low bidder did not meet the 2-year similar experience requirement contained in the invitation for bids (IFB) and that they materially unbalanced their bids. The agency admitted that the awardee alone did not meet the requirement but that, in conjunction with its proposed subcontractor, it did meet the requirement. The agency contended that it was permissible to meet the experience requirement in this manner. The protester argued that the subcontractor's experience could not be considered because the experience clause in the solicitation mentioned only the contractor. As the solicitation requirement in this case was clearly a definitive responsibility criterion, it was appropriate for GAO review. GAO held that the use of the word contractor throughout the specification could not reasonably be construed as prohibiting the use of subcontractors; there was no specific clause prohibiting the use of subcontractors in the specification. Contract experience of a proposed subcontractor may be used in determining whether a bidder meets an experience requirement if the bidder was the prime contractor on previous similar contracts, whether or not the experience requirement specifically mentions subcontractor experience. The protesting firm also alleged that the awardee unbalanced its bid by shifting costs from one bid item to another in contravention of a cost limitation clause. GAO held that the protester did not carry its burden of proof in this case. The awardee's low price in comparison to the protester's high price for the item in question supported the conclusion that the costs were not shifted. Accordingly, GAO found the award to have been proper and dismissed the allegations concerning the second low bidder.