Skip to Highlights

A firm protested an Army contract award for instrumentation development, contending that the Army: (1) inconsistently applied the evaluation criteria by emphasizing technical factors over cost factors; and (2) should have awarded it the contract as the low, technically acceptable bidder. GAO held that the Army: (1) consistently applied the stated criteria in determining that the protester's bid was technically deficient and unrealistically low; and (2) properly awarded the contract to the bidder offering the best value. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Full Report