The Department of the Navy issued a request for proposal (RFP) to obtain a cost type contract for services to help operate one of its satellite control centers. The RFP also stated that the contract was to be awarded to the offeror giving the Government greatest confidence that it would best meet the requirements in an affordable manner. The RFP evaluation criteria included factors such as mission capability and program management along with proposal risk, cost/price, and past performance. After the receipt of four proposals, the Navy Contracting Officer sent various evaluation notices (EN's) to all of the contractors requesting additional information from them regarding proposed subcontractor past performance information. This additional past performance data, among other things, allowed the Navy to conduct a "Most Probable Cost analysis" for one of the offerors and therefore make an award without discussions to that contractor based on its lower overall cost and value consistent with the evaluation criteria. Not surprisingly, the other three disappointed contractors have now protested this award claiming that the Navy violated applicable law and regulations by actually conducting discussions with the winner and not with them. Where there any laws that was violated in reference to FAR/government procurement law.