[Protest of Army Contract Award for Night Vision Devices]

A firm protested an Army contract award for night vision devices, contending that the Army: (1) credited bid enhancements not specified in the solicitation; (2) should have rated its technical bid high due to its technical alternative; (3) placed undue emphasis on certain subfactors; (4) failed to use appropriate data in evaluating past performance; (5) arbitrarily assigned bid ratings; (6) inappropriately allowed one awardee a higher price premium; (7) did not perform a rational tradeoff between price and technical considerations; and (8) engaged in improper negotiations with the awardees. GAO held that the Army: (1) appropriately consided bid enhancements when evaluating bids; (2) reasonably evaluated the protester's technical proposal; (3) reasonably concluded that the protester's alternative offered no advantage; (4) reasonably awarded to a higher bidder; and (5) awarded the contract consistently with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. Accordingly, the protest was denied.