[Protest of Any Air Force Contract Award Under IFB]

A firm protested any Air Force contract award under an IFB for audiovisual services, arguing that: (1) the solicitation failed to obligate the contractor to perform any services which the Air Force ordered it to perform; (2) since the solicitation did not allocate a certain amount of money for a mininimum quantity of work to be performed, increasing future contract costs could not be obligated by the Air Force; and (3) the Air Force violated Department of Defense and its own regulations which require that solicitations state the minimum quantity of services being procured. GAO held that: (1) since the Air Force intended to pay the contractor a fixed monthly sum to provide the required services, the contract was enforceable; (2) the monthly payments were intended to cover all contract costs; and (3) the Air Force reasonably interpreted its regulations as requiring its minimum needs, rather than a minimum quantity to be stated in the solicitation. The protester also alleged that the solicitation's estimates were inaccurate. GAO noted that this argument was untimely filed, since the alleged impropriety was apparent prior to bid opening. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.