Skip to Highlights

A firm protested a Naval Avionics Center contract award for lighting position and tracking systems, contending that: (1) the solicitation was defective; (2) the agency improperly rejected its lower cost alternative proposal; and (3) the procurement was tainted by conflict of interest because a former agency employee was employed by the awardee. GAO held that: (1) the argument concerning the alleged defective specifications was untimely because the specifications were apparent prior to bid opening and the protest should have been filed before that date; and (2) since the argument concerning the rejection of its low bid was filed well after the closing date, it was also untimely. GAO also held that the protester failed to prove that the awardee's hiring of a former agency employee prejudiced the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.