[Protest of Export-Import Bank Decision To Lease ADP Equipment]

A firm protested the Export-Import Bank's (Eximbank) award of a lease to another firm for computer equipment under an automatic data processing schedule contract, contending that: (1) Eximbank improperly determined that its proposal did not include accumulated credits toward the lease of upgraded equipment; (2) it would have offered technical support services equal to those the awardee offered if the solicitation had detailed Eximbank's need for such services; (3) Eximbank overvalued the technical support services the awardee offered; and (4) Eximbank acted in bad faith, motivated solely by its desire to continue to lease the required equipment from the awardee. Eximbank contended that the protest was untimely filed because GAO did not receive it before bid opening. GAO held that: (1) the protest was timely filed because it concerned the manner in which Eximbank applied the solicitation specifications rather than the specifications themselves; (2) Eximbank reasonably determined that any attempt to upgrade its equipment would cause a substantially higher overall cost under the protester's proposal than under the awardee's; (3) since the solicitation was merely a synopsis in the Commerce Business Daily, rather than a formal solicitation, Eximbank was not required to fully detail its requirement for technical support services; (4) Eximbank reasonably determined the value of the support services the awardee offered, as evidenced by its reduction of the awardee's estimate of their value; and (5) the protester's allegation of bad faith on the part of Eximbank was completely unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the protest was denied.