[Protest of Specifications in Army IFB]

A firm protested the specifications in an Army invitation for bids (IFB) issued for food services. Since an amendment to the IFB deleted some portions of the specifications which were protested, these grounds of the protest became moot. The protester also questioned the reasonableness of certain other requirements. GAO will not question an agency's determination of its actual minimal needs unless there is a clear showing that the determination has no reasonable basis. Since the protester failed to show that these requirements were unreasonable, this aspect of the protest was dismissed. Finally, the protester stated that the quality assurance plan proposed was arbitrary and capricious, since the Army planned to perform more stringent inspections on contractor-operated facilities than on Army-operated facilities and to penalize contractors for failing inspections. GAO will question an agency's quality assurance program only if the provisions are shown to be unduly restrictive of competition or in violation of procurement regulations. GAO found that neither of these exemptions existed in this case and that the Army had a rational basis for the difference between the inspection systems. Therefore, GAO had no basis to question the quality assurance provision. Accordingly, the protest was denied.