The Arora Group, Inc.

A firm protested an Army contract award for the operation of two primary outpatient clinics, contending that the Army failed to consider whether proposals met a solicitation provision establishing mandatory minimum room sizes for offices and various other areas of the facilities. GAO held that the terms incorporated into the solicitation for designing outpatient clinics were latently ambiguous and resulted in unequal competition. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Army: (1) armed the solicitation to clearly state its requirements, clarify which aspect, if any, of the proposals will be subjected to a "pass/fail" type of evaluation, and clearly state which factors will determine technical acceptability; (2) request new revised proposals based on the amended solicitation, reevaluate proposals, and determine which proposals represents the best value to the government; (3) if, upon reevaluation, the Army determines that the awardee's proposal no longer represents the best value, terminate the awardee's contract and make award to the offeror whose proposal is found to offer the best value; and (4) reimburse the protester the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorney's fees.