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/gaobaaddk0001 and id is 1 raw text is: N tj
S#
9 ,t |COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHNGTrON. c.Gt o %
3-178333
Oatobar 23, 1973
0. 1
Weather Science, Inc,
P.O. Box rr
florman, Oklahonm 73069
Attentilon: Ur. D, fRay floker
President
6 $
Wo refer to your letters of August 17 and Apri:L 5, 1973,
piotesting the aiiard of a contract to Sierra Rescarch Corporation
(referred to in the raeord as SRI) by the fureau of Lad J.ianazment
(BLI), Dapartrment of the Interior, under roquost Lc'r proposals
(rP) NoP-3-197.
Tha protest is prunmiuad on four grounda. Ttrnt, you allega that
the public opening, of the proposals and diecloeura of prtcizs in this
ncgotiatea procurement was rroneous and.led to ai auction whereby
Sil. was able to buy tb. contract by reducing* its prico £ ro $475,620
to $416,564., Second# you contend that the initial evaltitiio, of the
Isroposala, vAiehi resulted in your firm (ISI) receivinr the hW'hent
poiia score for price and tealnical frctors, van correct and'in
accordance with your undorstandinr of the evaluation criteria, and
that a change in the evaluation nothod which resulted in SRI becoming
/ the hitsheat scorer was improper and prejudicial to lISI. You st:ate
that you would hav twearod your proposal to give proper weipht to
tatalnica]. considerations had you known the.netual basis of the
. evaluation. Third, you beliove that the procuroent was biased to
Ssome etont against your concern by roasou of a latter datod March 6,
1973, which SIaunt to the contracting officc, qunstiontns your
/ ability to oupply the required aircraft and which may havs inf1urncoed
. the technical evaluation and thy Govertuent's decision to neck
.t*s submission of revined proposals, Fourth, you uunr.ond that DU1.4 iled
/''j to provIde you with specific inforuation as to the techuicnl daf-
g. ciencies in your initial proposal to enable you to prepare your
I.revlad proposal. For these reasons, you believe the awsard may hivm
. been llesal and that, as a minimum remedy, 1LIt should not exorcfft
'the optionu under the contract for 1974 and 1975. Ynu also believn
you should recover the expenses of preparing your provosal.
$ I
4$ 1
, D -C, CO.)I
I O D . ,
O$15](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaaddk0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)