[Protest of Marine Corps Contract Award]

A firm protested a Marine Corps contract award for engineering and support services, contending that: (1) rating its proposal as technically unacceptable was erroneous; (2) the Marine Corps failed to conduct meaningful discussions; and (3) the procurement was deficient in numerous other respects. After review of final submissions, the Marine Corps decided that only two firms were technically acceptable and awarded the contract to the firm with the lower bid. The protester contended that the procurement process was deliberately distorted to eliminate its bid. It believed that its proposal was criticized for alleged deficiencies in areas where the awardee's proposal contained similar or more serious deficiencies. The determination of the relative desirability of proposals, particularly with respect to technical considerations, is primarily a matter for the judgment of the contracting officials. The fact that a protester does no agree with an evaluation does not make it unreasonable. GAO found that the Marine Corps' conclusion that the awardee's proposal reflected a more thorough, precise understanding of the operating environment, methods, and problems that would be encountered was reasonable due to the awardee's work on a similar support contract. In addition, GAO found that the evaluation of contractor personnel qualifications was reasonable. Furthermore, GAO found that the discussions which the Marine Corps held with the protester were sufficient to be considered meaningful. The fact that the Marine Corps used a contract negotiator, rather than a technically qualified representative, to conduct the discussions should have been protested within 10 days of the time the discussions were held. Since it was not, this protest was untimely. Because GAO found that the Marine Corps had a reasonable basis for eliminating the protester's proposal from the competitive range, protests concerning the evaluation of its price and past experience were academic. GAO found that the protester failed to prove its allegation that the awardee had no intention of assigning the personnel it proposed to the contract. GAO also noted that the Marine Corps is aware of possible areas of conflict of interest because the awardee performs other similar contracts, but will monitor this situation as a matter of contract administration. Finally, GAO found that the protester failed to provide evidence to support its allegation that it was denied certain documents. Accordingly, the protest wa