About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-400134.10 1 (2009-08-18)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadayr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


  L

         G    A   O                                                   Comptroller General
, ,  c   ountabiity * 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.
         D  e c  is io n                           ...........................................................


         Matter  of:  Northrop Grumman   Information Technology, Inc.

         File:        B-400134.10

         Date:        August 18, 2009

         William W. Thompson, Jr., Esq., Lori Ann Lange, Esq., and Michael A. Branca, Esq.,
         Peckar & Abramson,  P.C., for the protester.
         Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Nicole Owren-Wiest, Esq.,
         Jon W. Burd, Esq., and Stephen J. Obermeier, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for General
         Dynamics  Information Technology, Inc., the intervenor.
         W. Michael Rose, Esq., MAJ Jonathan P. Widmann, and B. Eric Beckstrom, Esq.,
         Department  of the Air Force, for the agency.
         Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
         GAO,  participated in the preparation of the decision.
         DIGEST

         1. Protest that Air Force failed to properly evaluate the awardee's proposal and
         assess its proposal risk is sustained where, contrary to the evaluation scheme
         announced  in the solicitation, the agency failed to evaluate staffing under all of the
         Mission Capability subfactors.

         2. Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals is sustained where the
         solicitation stated that they would be evaluated on the extent to which they
         exceeded a requirement, and proposals that were substantially different were
         nevertheless rated the same.

         3. Protest of agency's decision not to consider revised proposals in the reevaluation
         following corrective action is untimely when filed after the issuance of the new
         award decision, where protester knew or should have known prior to that award
         decision of the agency's intent not to consider proposal revisions.
         DECISION

         Northrop Grumman   Information Technology, Inc. (NGIT), of McLean, Virginia,
         protests the award of a contract to General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.
         (GDIT), of Fairfax, Virginia, by the Department of the Air Force (AF), Air Force
         Space Command   (AFSPC  or Command)  under request for proposals (RFP)

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most