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

B-400340.5,B-400340.6 1 (2010-01-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadbex0001 and id is 1 raw text is: AlL A , G A O Comptroller General 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. D e c is io n ........................................................... Matter of: General Dynamics One Source, LLC; Unisys Corporation File: B-400340.5; B-400340.6 Date: January 20, 2010 Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Daniel E. Chudd, Esq., and Daniel I. Weiner, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for General Dynamics One Source, LLC; Richard J. Webber, Esq., Kavitha J. Babu, Esq., and Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, and Alice H. Warner, Esq., Unisys Corporation, for Unisys Corporation, protesters. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Jill Renee Newell Chung, Esq., Computer Sciences Corporation, LLC, for the intervenor. Christian F.P. Jordan, Esq., Virginia G. Farrier, Esq., and Kimberly Shackleford, Esq., Transportation Security Administration, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) challenge to GAO's jurisdiction to review protest--based on agency's position that it initiated phase I of acquisition prior to effective date of GAO's jurisdiction over TSA protests--is denied where record shows that, although phase I was for purpose of down-selecting firms to compete under phase II, agency abandoned phase I results and engaged in all acquisition activities under phase II, which was initiated after effective date. 2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal for price realism is sustained, where record shows that agency failed to evaluate disparity between staffing offered in awardee's technical proposal and price proposal, and also failed to evaluate awardee's ability to hire incumbent's employees (as it proposed) given relatively low labor rates in its price proposal. 3. Agency unreasonably accepted awardee's proposal with incentive fee lower than amount specified in solicitation where solicitation reasonably led protesters to understand that specified fee was mandatory; agency should either have amended solicitation or engaged in discussions to advise all firms that different incentive fee could be proposed.

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