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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaogb0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
G A 0 Comptroller General
Accountability * Integrity* Reliability of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Decision
Matter of: Duncan Security Consultants, Inc.
File: B-290574
Date: August 8, 2002
Nancy 0. Dix, Esq., and Leonard L. Anthony, Esq,. Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, for
the protester.
Mary E. Clarke, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably selected low-priced, technically acceptable proposal--without
considering relative technical merits of proposals--where, although solicitation
included standard evaluation provision stating that award would be based on offer
most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered, it did
not include technical evaluation factors, but instead stated that award would be
based upon a proposal meeting all terms and conditions of the solicitation.
DECISION
Duncan Security Consultants, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Nu-Way
Security and Private Investigations under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA1 13-
02-R-0006, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Television Audio Support
Activity for security and armed guard services. Duncan principally argues that the
agency improperly made award on the basis of low price rather than a comparative
evaluation of the proposals.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued March 6, 2002 as a competitive section 8(a) set aside, contemplated
the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with 4 option years. The RFP
included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial
Items, which provides for award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming
to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, price and other
factors considered. At the end of the provision is the statement [t]he following](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaogb0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)