Skip to Highlights

A firm protested an Army contract award for metal equipment, contending that the Army: (1) improperly awarded the contract to a nonresponsive bidder; (2) unreasonably determined that its bid was ineligible; and (3) should terminate the contract and resolicit the solicitation. GAO held that: (1) the Army improperly barred the protester from competition based on its alleged assistance in devising the specifications; (2) the Army improperly awarded the contract, since the awardee's bid was nonresponsive; (3) contract termination and resolicitation were not feasible; and (4) the protester was entitled to reimbursement for its bid and protest preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest was sustained.

Full Report