Skip to Highlights

A firm protested the State Department's award of a subcontract to another firm for windows and doors for a foreign embassy, contending that: (1) State improperly rejected its late price reduction; (2) State did not complete negotiations with the prime contractor before the awardee's offer acceptance period expired; (3) State improperly waived an experience requirement for the awardee's benefit; (4) the awardee lacked the capability and experience to perform the work; (5) a solicitation amendment that the awardee would enter into a subcontract, rather than contract directly with State, would result in unknown risks and costs to offerers; and (6) the prime contractor was ineligible for a government contract, since it was a foreign firm. GAO held that: (1) State properly rejected the protester's price modification, since it determined that further delay in the procurement would jeopardize the project; (2) State properly allowed the awardee to waive its proposal acceptance period expiration, since all proposals had expired; (3) a solicitation amendment superseded the provision concerning experience; (4) the portion of the protest concerning the awardee's capability was a matter of responsibility, which it would not review; (5) the protester untimely filed the portion of its protest concerning the manner of award; and (6) the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the prime contract award, since it was not a prospective bidder for that contract. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.

Full Report