[Protest of DOE Rejection of Proposal as Technically Unacceptable]

A firm protested a Department of Energy prime contractor's rejection of its low bid for crawler tractors as technically unacceptable, contending that: (1) its bid was improperly rejected as technically unacceptable because some of the requirements had no operational function; (2) the products that it offered satisfied or exceeded all of the performance requirements set forth in the brand name or equal solicitation; (3) the rejection of its proposal was an act of bad faith; (4) it may have been improperly denied the contract because it was under the protection of federal bankruptcy laws; and (5) the products which it offered were prequalified as technically acceptable. GAO has held that, when a solicitation sets forth particular features of brand name items, these features are presumed to be material and essential to the government's needs. GAO found that: (1) the rejection of the protester's bid was proper because the product it offered did not conform to the requirements of the specifications; (2) to the extent that the protest related to the belief that the solicitation was unduly restrictive, it was untimely because it was filed after the closing date for receipt of initial proposals; (3) the protester failed to meet its burden of proof that the rejection of its proposal was an act of bad faith; (4) there was no merit in the allegation that the protester's bid was rejected because it was under the protection of federal bankruptcy laws; and (5) the issue of prequalification was untimely filed since it was presented more than 10 working days after the date on which the protester first received knowledge of adverse action. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.