The Army requested reconsideration of a sustained protest against its solicitation for pistols. GAO had held that the Army: (1) improperly required complete retesting of the protester's product and exempted the incumbent's product from such retesting; and (2) should have limited retesting of the protester's product to the specifications it failed to meet or completely retested both the protester's and the incumbent's products. In its request for reconsideration, the Army contended that: (1) it was not technically feasible to retest the protester's product on only unmet specifications; (2) the passage of time since prior testing of the protester's product necessitated complete retesting; and (3) the incumbent's performance under the production contract proved that there was no need for further testing. GAO held that the Army failed to adequately justify its complete retesting requirement for the protester's product and its exemption of the incumbent's product from such testing. Accordingly, the original decision was affirmed.
Skip to Highlights