Protest of Air Force Contract Award

A firm protested the award of an Air Force contract for the maintenance of electronic warfare ranges at a facility in Nevada. The firm contended that: (1) an organizational conflict of interest existed since the awardee's equipment would be tested on ranges operated by its own employees; (2) the awardee's price proposal did not comply with Federal law; (3) an ambiguity existed in the solicitation which meant that all offerors would not compete on an equal basis; (4) the awardee improperly substituted a subsidiary to perform the contract; and (5) the Air Force held improper discussions with another bidder. GAO reviewed the record and found that: (1) based on Federal regulations, no conflict of interest occurred and, moreover, this contention was untimely since it was not raised prior to the closing date for the receipt of initial proposals; (2) since the applicable Department of Labor wage determination had been incorporated into the contract, the contractor was legally bound to pay the minimum wages and fringe benefits; (3) when read as a whole, no ambiguity existed in the solicitation, which was equal contrary to the protester's allegation that the offerors competed on an unequal basis; (4) the successful contractor's use of personnel from a wholly owned subsidiary to help perform the contract did not violate Federal law since the subsidiary was the agent rather than the assignee of the contractor; and (5) whether the Air Force improperly held discussions with an unsuccessful bidder after requesting best and final offers need not be determined since this action made no difference in the selection of the successful offeror. No bidder was prejudiced, and the issue was therefore academic. The protest was denied.