[Protest of Proposed Air Force Contract Award for Computer Software Services]

A firm protested a proposed Air Force small business set-aside contract award for software services, contending that the Air Force: (1) should have scored its bid higher, because of its superior performance as the incumbent contractor; (2) misapplied evaluation criteria in rating the bids; (3) failed to conduct adequate discussions or a proper cost analysis; and (4) should have rejected the proposed awardee's bid, since its proposed subcontractor was a large business. GAO held that the Air Force: (1) reasonably determined that both proposals were acceptable; (2) reasonably balanced the protester's modest technical advantage against the proposed awardee's considerable cost advantage; (3) properly requested the Defense Contract Audit Agency to conduct a cost analysis; and (4) was not required to inform the protester that its bid was substantially higher than the proposed awardee's bid. GAO would not consider the protester's allegations regarding the subcontractor's size, since size status determinations were not within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.