[Protest of IRS Contract Award for an Archival Storage and Retrieval System]

A firm protested the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) award of a contract for a storage and retrieval system, contending that IRS had improperly determined that the protester's proposal was unacceptable and had not informed the protester of its deficiencies. IRS informed all of the offerers that it intended to complete its technical evaluation based on the information it received from them, and that responses that were inadequate or required additional discussion with the offerer would be considered unacceptable. GAO noted that the protester had the burden of establishing that its revised proposal was technically acceptable and assumed the risk that changes it made in its final offer might raise questions and result in rejection of its proposal. The protester agreed with IRS that it did not comply with a major solicitation requirement but contended that information from another offerer contained the same criterion that was needed to rate its system. The protester's disagreement with the IRS technical judgment that the changes were substantial and not adequately explained was insufficient to meet its burden of establishing the agency as unreasonable. GAO has held that, where the only evidence on an issue of fact is the conflicting statements of the protester and the contracting official, the protester has not carried its burden in proving its case. GAO has also held that there is no obligation for an agency to reopen negotiations so that an offerer may correct a defect in a previously acceptable proposal by a best and final offer. Accordingly, the protest was denied.