[Protest of Any Award to Two Indian Tribes Under Army IFB]

A firm protested a contract award to another firm under an Army solicitation, contending that: (1) the awardee had an unfair competitive advantage because, as an affiliate of an Indian tribal corporation, its capital assets and labor costs were allegedly subsidized by the government; (2) there was no such entity as the name under which the awardee's bid was submitted; (3) the Army's determination that the awardee was responsible was tantamount to fraud; and (4) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because it did not contain certain required certifications. GAO held that: (1) since there was no indication that the awardee gained a competitive advantage through some unfair action by the government, the government was not required to offset the advantage; (2) the awardee was a subsidiary of the tribal corporation, which was federally chartered; (3) the protester did not sufficiently prove that the Army's affirmative determination of responsibility with regard to the protester was fraudulent; and (4) the awardee's failure to complete the required certifications was waiveable as a minor informality. Accordingly, the protest was denied.