[Protest of Determination of Ineligibility of Award and Status of Low Bidder Under IFB]

A firm protested the Defense Logistics Agency's finding that it was not eligible for a Labor Surplus Area (LSA) preference under an invitation for bids (IFB) for canned apple juice. The firm also protested the status of the low bidder under the IFB as a regular dealer or manufacturer within the meaning of the Walsh-Healey Act. Because the protester had made conflicting entries on its bid regarding whether the work would be performed substantially in an LSA, the contracting officer made several inquiries to the protester concerning contract cost in relation to its eligibility as an LSA concern. The protester did not fully answer these inquiries, because it felt that they inappropriately involved information about the costs that would be incurred in non-LSA's, as opposed to the LSA costs. GAO found that the protester's bid was ambiguous as to the protester's place of performance. Because the bid would not be evaluated as low under one of two reasonable interpretations, GAO concluded that the protester was not eligible for evaluation as an LSA concern. While a prior decision disposed of the issue of the protester's eligibility as an LSA concern, GAO also pointed out that a provision requiring bidders to list the LSA percentage and location does not proscribe the information a contracting officer can request before affording a firm the preference. Further, it is the responsibility of the contracting officer, not the firm desiring the contract, to determine the nature and extent of the information necessary to establish that the firm can meet its obligations if awarded the contract. GAO does not consider the legal status of a low bidder as a regular dealer or manufacturer within the meaning of the Walsh-Healey Act. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.