About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-405993,B-405993.2 1 (2012-01-19)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadonc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




G              A                                                         Comptroller General
        Accountability * Integrity * Reliability                         of the United States
United States Government Accountability Office      DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Washington, DC 20548                                  The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
                                                      GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
                                                      approved for public release.

          Decision

          Matter of: Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

          File:        B-405993; B-405993.2

          Date:        January 19, 2012

          Rand L. Allen, Esq., Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., John R. Prairie, Esq.,
          and Samantha M. Shinsato, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester.
          Richard J. Webber, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq.,
          Craig S. King, Esq., and Judith B. Kassel, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for VSE Corporation,
          an intervenor.
          Michael B. Hedrick, Esq., Kerry G. Hotopp, Esq., Gwendolyn A. Iaci, Esq., and
          Andrew C. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
          Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          1. Protest challenging agency's cost realism evaluation of awardee's proposal is
          denied where the record demonstrates that the agency's conclusions were
          reasonable.

          2. Protest that awardee's cost proposal failed to comply with a material solicitation
          requirement (a mandated allocation of labor between stateside and overseas
          locations within a notional work package) is denied where the awardee's cost
          proposal was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the solicitation
          requirement, and the agency's subsequent evaluation ensured a fair comparison on a
          common basis notwithstanding the offerors' different understandings of the
          requirement.

          3. Exchanges between the awardee and the Defense Contract Audit Agency in a
          negotiated procurement after the contracting agency's receipt of proposals, intended
          to further explain the basis of indirect rates included within the awardee's cost
          proposal, did not constitute discussions, where the exchange clarified information
          already present in the awardee's proposal and the awardee was not presented with
          an opportunity to revise its proposal.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most