A firm protested an Army contract award for radio spare parts, contending that the Army should have awarded it the contract, since it was the low bidder. GAO held that the Army properly determined that the: (1) awardee's proposal represented the best overall value to the government; (2) protester's unsubstantiated price decrease in its best and final offer and past contract performance indicated a significant performance risk; and (3) protester's offer was technically deficient, since it failed to explain how price reductions affected its technical proposal. GAO also held that the: (1) Army was not obligated to reopen negotiations so that the protester could remedy defects in its best and final offer; and (2) Army's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
Skip to Highlights