[Protest of Army Contract Awards for Rifle Telescopes]

A firm protested Army contract awards for modified telescopes, contending that the Army improperly: (1) abandoned the stated evaluation methodology; and (2) waived a mandatory solicitation requirement and overlooked excessive front-loading in an awardee's bid. GAO held that the: (1) Army unreasonably evaluated bids by ranking technically superior bids the same as technically acceptable bids; (2) Army improperly converted the evaluation scheme to result in the selection of the low-priced, technically acceptable proposal; (3) Army reasonably accepted an awardee's developmental product, since the awardee's other experience was sufficient; and (4) protester untimely filed its protest regarding front-loading more than 10 days after it learned of the basis for protest. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Army: (1) reconsider its evaluation scheme and revise the solicitation to reflect the Army's need for telescopes; (2) clarify the solicitation requirements for modified non-developmental items and mandatory production experience; (3) permit offerors to submit revised best and final offers, and evaluate those bids in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria; (4) reimburse the protester for its protest costs; and (5) award contract to the bidders with the greatest technical merit, if it decided to retain the original evaluation criteria.