Skip to Highlights

A firm protested any Army contract award for maintenance services, contending that the Army improperly required bidders to estimate costs over the entire 3-year contract period, which included two option years, since it knew that it would not exercise the options. GAO held that: (1) it would not review the Army's decision to award a new contract for the work rather than exercise the option under the protester's existing contract, since that was a matter of contract administration; and (2) the protester should pursue any claims for costs due to an alleged improper contract award under its contract disputes clause and the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.

Full Report