[Protest of Navy Solicitation for Accelerometers]

A firm protested a Navy solicitation for accelerometers, contending that the: (1) solicitation improperly provided more credit for bids that exceeded the minimum specification requirements; (2) Navy did not disclose the importance of the cost in the solicitation; (3) solicitation's quality control plan requirements were unclear; and (4) first article test requirements were unreasonable and precluded full and open competition. GAO held that the: (1) Navy properly provided more credit for bids that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements; (2) protester's contention that the solicitation was defective for failing to disclose the importance of cost was untimely; (3) solicitation specifications were intended to be flexible, since there were different processes that could be used to manufacture the item; and (4) testing requirement was necessary to ensure that the contractor would meet the Navy's requirements. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.