[Protest of Army Contract Award for Rifles]

A firm protested an Army contract award for rifles, contending that the Army improperly: (1) applied criteria other than price in evaluating bids; (2) determined that the awardee was responsible; and (3) restricted the procurement pursuant to an allegedly deficient justification and approval, which made the award invalid. GAO held that the: (1) protester failed to show that the Army applied any evaluation criteria other than price, since the Army awarded the contract to the low bidder; (2) Army reasonably relied on a preaward survey in determining the awardee's responsibility; and (3) defect in the justification and approval. Accordingly, the protest was denied.