[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Magnetic Silencing Equipment]

A firm protested a Navy contract award for magnetic silencing equipment, contending that the: (1) awardee had an unfair competitive advantage; and (2) Navy improperly adjusted its bid. GAO held that the Navy's: (1) failure to provide the protester with information it provided to the awardee adversely affected the protester's technical proposal evaluation; and (2) cost evaluation was unreasonable. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Navy: (1) equalize competition and resolicit its requirements; (2) and reimburse the protester for its protest costs.