A protest of an award for satellite airtime and billing services was denied by the Court of Federal Claims because the protester failed to substantiate its allegations of technical unacceptability, waiver of a material requirement, unequal treatment, and bait and switch. The protester argued the awardee's proposal was ineligible and improperly evaluated, the government treated offerors unequally and unfairly, and that post-award actions by the government violated procurement law and regulations. However, the awardee's proposal was facially compliant with all the material solicitation requirements, and its low price was determined to be reasonable. The government did not waive a solicitation requirement or allow an illegal "bait and switch" when it considered, but rejected, the awardee's proposal to use a different telecommunications provider than the one required by the solicitation. Also, there was no evidence the government treated the offerors unequally. Even if the awardee based its bid on an unstated assumption it would change the provider, there was no indication the government had knowledge of the assumption or that it resulted in an improper evaluation or an unreasonable proposed price. As the awardee failed to successfully convince the government to allow a substitute telecommunications provider, there was no improper post-award modification or other conduct to support cancelling the award. (L-3 Global Communications Solutions, Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,989)