[Protest of Contract Award Under Army RFP]

A firm protested an Army contract award for the acquisition of an oxygen generating system for testing in field use exercises. The protester complained that the Army awarded the contract to a firm whose system did not meet the "medical" oxygen requirements of the request for proposals (RFP). In addition, the protester alleged that the Army had acted improperly in not terminating the awardee's contract for default when the firm repeatedly failed to meet the contract delivery date. The protester contended that the Army's action in waiving the "medical" oxygen requirement put it at a price disadvantage. The Army responded that its use of the term "medical" did not mandate that the offered systems be suitable for patient treatment, and no oxygen generated by the system would be used for patient respiration. The Army also stated that no section of the RFP required that the offered oxygen systems be certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The protester had asked the Army to make FDA certification and early delivery date requirements of the RFP; however, the Army did not accede to the request. GAO will not consider the merits of an allegation that more restrictive specifications than those established in a solicitation are necessary. In addition, GAO failed to find that the protester offered evidence to support its assertion that the Army was limited to accepting systems certified by FDA for patient therapy. Furthermore, GAO found that the protester was not prejudiced by the specifications used because the only system it could furnish exceeded the Army's needs at a higher price than that offered by the awardee. Finally, GAO found that the awardee's product met the solicitation specifications. GAO does not consider questions of whether a contractor is performing in accordance with contract terms, since this a matter of contract administration. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.