About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-277263.2 1 (1997-09-29)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptagbo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: oComptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a I GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support File: B-277263.2; B-277263.3 Date: September 29, 1997 Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Esq., William H. Butterfield, Esq., and Christopher H. Jensen, Esq., Kilcullen, Wilson & Kilcullen, and Mark W. Reardon, Esq., The Boeing Corporation, for the protester. Gerard F. Doyle, Esq., Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., and Michael F. Mason, Esq., Doyle & Bachman, for Raytheon E-Systems, an intervenor. Christopher E. Kernan, Esq., Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Past performance risk evaluation is unobjectionable where agency follows evaluation criteria stated in solicitation and conduct of evaluation is reasonable. 2. Cost evaluation of award fee is unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that offeror's proposed fee structure provided limited incentive for superior performance. 3. Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where, as the result of an attribution methodology in the protester's proposal which the agency found unacceptable, but failed to address during discussions, the agency treated as omitted and erroneously added into its cost evaluation a significant number of direct labor hours which were actually provided in the protester's proposal. 4. Agency's source selection analysis was defective where it addressed cost only in terms of risk without considering proposals' relative evaluated cost. 5. Agency's post-protest award determination reassessment does not establish that protester was not prejudiced by discussion and evaluation errors where the agency continues to take the position that relative evaluated cost need not be weighed and fails to take into consideration the relative cost differential in the areas over which the offerors exercised any control.

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:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most