[Protest Against Army Solicitation for Signage System]

A firm protested an Army solicitation for design and installation of a signage system, contending that: (1) the solicitation was unduly restrictive because it called for a single fixed-price contract for design and installation; and (2) the specifications were vague and inadequate. GAO held that: (1) based on an internal study, the Army reasonably determined that a single contract for design and installation was appropriate; (2) the Army reasonably developed the specifications from the study's recommendations; and (3) the protester did not prove that the specifications were defective or unduly restrictive. Accordingly, the protest was denied.