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

B-176701 1 (1972-12-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaaenl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTRICTED - Not to be ireleased outside the General b eOfceo egeiea RatoarerdfAccounthig Office except on the!basls of secific approv. is kept by the Distribution Section, Publications Branch, OA 1 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES oRE.EA.'ED WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548 TsRELEASED B-176701 Dear Mr. Chairman: We are responding to your letter of August 4, 1972, regarding the award of an Army advanced development contract inJ9l71_to T1.hpRQeing Coi~c~iipa q'fO~Yg - the 'design fabrication and. tu~sting of certain C , ici~i'il advanced technology components. The components provide the ffe-parnment o' Defense with improved technology and reduced risk in program definition for the heavy-lift helicopter. You referred to your Subcommittee's interest in having the back- ground information bearing on the decision to award this cntract to only one source after earlier consideration was given to making awards to two or more competing companies. Also, you requested that we verify that the procedures followed by the Army in awarding the contract were in compliance with the Armed Services Procurement Regulation. We found that, before it solicited proposals, the Army knew of at least three basic helicopter configuration concepts, any one of which might be adapted to the heavy-lift function. Because these configura- tions were so different from one another, most critical components developed for one configuration were not expected to be usable in either of the other two. The Army'also anticipated that developing these components represented a high-risk venture. With these considerations in mind, the Army believed that the award of parallel advanced development contracts for these components would provide added assurance that at least one feasible approach would be in hand when it came time Lo t i gng dtygppn Sub- sequently, in evaluating the proposals received from various contractors, the Army found that two offerors had proposed component development programs which posed only medium technical risk, although each was postu- lated on a different basic configuration. Of the two proposals, Boeing's was judged by the Army to be the better one. It was given the highest evaluation score of all proposals received. The decision to award only one contract came out of Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council meetings held in April and May of 1971. The

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