[Protest of Air Force Procurement of Audiovisual and Graphics Services]

A firm filed two protests against an Air Force procurement. The first protest challenged the Air Force's decision not to exercise an option under its current contract and questioned the requirements of a new solicitation. In its second protest, the protester contended that contracting procedures used in the second solicitation were contrary to Federal Acquisition Regulations and requested that the requirement be resolicited. GAO has held that an agency's decision as to whether to exercise a renewal option is a matter of contract administration which is not for review under the GAO bid protest function. GAO found that the Air Force successfully rebutted a protester allegation that the agency misstated its actual minimum needs, and the protester failed to prove that the Air Force acted unreasonably in making its determination. Concerning the second protest, GAO found that the protester was placed at no competitive disadvantage as a result of information it received from the Air Force prior to bid opening. Further, GAO has held that failure to correctly note the terms and identify the contents of bids at a public opening is merely a deviation of form, which does not affect the validity of an otherwise proper award. Finally, the protester questioned the acceptance of two other firms' amendment acknowledgments which were received in a timely fashion; however, due to government mishandling were received late. GAO has held that, when lateness is due to government mishandling, such amendments are proper for consideration. Accordingly, the first protest was dismissed in part and denied in part and the second protest was denied.