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/gaobacykd0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
I
G A 0Comptroller General
A- Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States General Accounting 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: PharmChem, Inc.
File: B-291725.3; B-291725.4; B-291725.5
Date: July 22, 2003
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Hector Garcia-Santana, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal, for the protester.
Tenley A. Carp, Esq., and Karen Yankosky, Esq., McGuire Woods, for Scientific
Testing Laboratories, Inc., an intervenor.
Rafael A. Madan, Esq., John L. Pensinger, Esq., and Linda Fallowfield, Esq.,
Department of Justice, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Agency's evaluation of offeror's proposal of [deleted] to staff three key personnel
positions as acceptable was unobjectionable where solicitation did not prohibit
proposed staffing plan, agency ensured offeror understood requirements, and agency
considered performance risk.
2. Protest that contracting agency conducted inadequate and unequal discussions as
between the protester and awardee is denied where record shows that agency
properly tailored discussions to each offeror, and provided each the opportunity to
revise its proposal.
3. Awardee's proposal of a labor rate of $0.00 for certain personnel in procurement
for award of time-and-materials contract was unobjectionable where agency
conducted price realism evaluation that encompassed consideration of awardee's
ability to perform while furnishing the affected personnel at no cost to the
government.
4. Where agency reasonably determined that offerors' proposals were technically
equivalent notwithstanding protester's slightly higher rating under single technical
factor, agency properly considered evaluated price as the determining factor in its
best value determination.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobacykd0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)