[Protest of DGSC Contract Award for Lid Assemblies for Gasoline Field Range Outfits]

A firm protested a Defense General Supply Center (DGSC) contract award to another bidder for lid assemblies, contending that the awardee: (1) improperly based its low price on its unauthorized use of government tooling under previous contracts; (2) had a competitive advantage, since it did not need to include tooling costs in its bid; (3) misrepresented itself as a manufacturer of lid assemblies; and (4) failed to complete a portion of the bid form that identified those subcontractors that accounted for more than 50 percent of the contract price. GAO held that: (1) it would not review the allegation that the awardee's use of government tooling would not comply with the contract requirements, since that was a matter of contract administration; (2) the allegation concerning the awardee's competitive advantage was without merit, since the advantage did not result from preferential treatment or unfair government action; (3) it would not consider the firm's legal status as a regular dealer or manufacturer, since that was the contracting agency's duty; and (4) the clause that the awardee failed to complete only prevented its consideration as a labor surplus area concern and was not a basis for denying it the award. Accordingly, the protest was denied.