A firm protested an Army contract award for modular buildings under a defaulted contract, contending that the Army improperly: (1) orally solicited proposals to reprocure the service; (2) permitted offerers to submit telephonic quotations; and (3) awarded the contract on the basis of initial telephonic proposals. GAO held that the: (1) protester untimely filed its protest against the Army's use of telephonic proposals; (2) Army properly orally solicited proposals, since it received adequate competition from the next three low offerers under the original solicitation; and (3) Army properly awarded the contract on the basis of the awardee's initial proposal. GAO also held that the protester was not entitled to reimbursement for its legal fees, since the protest was without merit. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.
Skip to Highlights