[Protest of Army Procedures Under Solicitation for Video Display and Teleconference System]

A firm protested the Army's procedures under a solicitation for a video display and teleconference system, contending that the Army's second request for best and final offers was improper, since it: (1) delayed the procurement; and (2) afforded one of the other bidders an unfair advantage. GAO held that the: (1) protest alleging that the Army delayed the procurement for the benefit of another bidder was academic, since the Army eliminated that bidder from competition prior to receipt of initial best and final offers; and (2) protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the Army's failure to make award on the basis of initial best and final offers, since it would not be in line for award even if the protest were sustained. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.