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/gaobaczam0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
I
G A 0Comptroller General
WAS Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States Government Accountability 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: Abt Associates Inc.
File: B-295449; B-295449.2
Date: March 2, 2005
Dean M. Dilley, Esq., and Michael J. Schaengold, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the
protester.
Garry S. Grossman, Esq., and Aaron M. Forester, Esq., Schiff Hardin LLP, for
National Opinion Research Center, an intervenor.
Elise Harris, Esq., Alex M. Azar II, Esq., and Bruce R. Granger, Esq., Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 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. Protest that discussions were not meaningful due to agency's failure to identify
several weaknesses is denied where it is clear that protester was not prejudiced;
assigning protester's proposal additional evaluation credit in the areas involved
would leave its technical proposal rated lower than awardee's, and awardee's
evaluated cost was significantly lower than protester's.
2. Technical evaluation of protester's proposal was reasonable where initial
proposal failed to provide sufficient information regarding key personnel's expertise
in a particular area and availability of consultants, and agency reasonably
determined that revised proposal failed to provide sufficient information to address
its concerns.
3. Technical evaluation of awardee's proposal regarding experience with [deleted]
was reasonable where, in response to discussion questions on this matter, awardee
provided additional information to demonstrate sufficient [deleted] and other
comparable experience of various key personnel.
4. Cost realism evaluation of awardee's proposal was unobjectionable where record
shows that agency reviewed cost elements of initial proposal, obtained revised cost
proposal, and had it reviewed by Defense Contract Audit Agency for realism and
possible understatement; source selection authority considered the information in](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaczam0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)