A firm protested a Forest Service firm fixed-price contract award for the design and construction of a footbridge, contending that the award was improper, since the Forest Service did not evaluate all bids in accordance with the technical and aesthetic evaluation criteria. GAO would not question the contracting official's determination concerning the solicitation's technical merits or aesthetic considerations absent a showing of unreasonableness. GAO held that the protester's disagreement with the Forest Service's evaluation did not render the evaluation unreasonable. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
Skip to Highlights