[Protest of Bureau of Engraving and Printing Contract Award for Safety and Health Services]

A firm protested a Bureau of Engraving and Printing contract award for employee safety and health services, contending that the Bureau: (1) did not notify bidders that it would make award on initial bids; (2) conducted discussions only with the awardee; (3) improperly allowed the awardee to substitute two key personnel; (4) improperly determined that the awardee was responsible; and (5) was biased against the protester. GAO held that: (1) the Bureau properly advised protesters that it may make award on initial bids; (2) the Bureau's verification of the awardee's bid did not constitute discussions; (3) the awardee promptly notified the Bureau when two key personnel, due to unforseeable circumstances, became unavailable for contract performance; (4) there was no evidence of fraud or bad faith in the Bureau's affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility; and (5) the protester failed to support its allegations that the Bureau's evaluation of bids was biased against the protester or in favor of the awardee. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.