[Protest of EPA Contract Award for Research Animal Colony Support]

A firm protested an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract award for research animals and related supplies and services, contending that: (1) as the incumbent contractor for the services, it had more relevant experience than the awardee; (2) the awardee never intended to use the project manager it named in its best and final offer; (3) EPA should have awarded it the contract, based on its lower proposed cost; (4) EPA improperly disclosed its employee's names; (5) EPA failed to give written notice of award; and (6) the awardee had difficulty in staffing the contract after the award. GAO held that: (1) EPA reasonably evaluated the offerers' relevant experience; (2) the awardee clearly intended to employ the individual it named as project manager, but he declined the awardee's offer of employment; (3) the protester provided no evidence showng that EPA disclosed the names of the firm's employees; (4) the EPA failure to give written notice of award was not significant; (5) the awardee's staffing difficulties were a matter of contract administration, which it would not consider; and (6) EPA properly awarded the contract to a higher-priced, technically superior offerer. Accordingly, the protest was denied.