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

B-401876.2 1 (2010-01-26)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadbqd0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 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. Decision Matter of: Federal Express Corporation File: B-401876.2 Date: January 26, 2010 Robert A. Burton, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Dismas N. Locaria, Esq., and James Y. Boland, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Richard P. Rector, Esq., Fernand A. Lavallee, Esq., Samuel B. Knowles, Esq., and Seamus Curley, Esq., DLA Piper LLP, for United Parcel Service, Inc., an intervenor. Nathan C. Guerrero, Esq., Virginia Grebasch, Esq., and Jennifer L. Howard, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph 0. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation established multiple tiers with regard to potential shipping volume that could occur, and the record establishes that the agency considered the offerors' proposed prices under each tier, the agency properly focused its price evaluation on offerors' pricing applicable to the shipping volume the agency expected to experience. 2. Agency reasonably complied with solicitation provisions regarding quantification of protester's no-charge value-added services, where it viewed the awardee's proposed prices for the same or similar services as establishing the quantified value for such services and, with regard to a limited number of services that exceeded the solicitation requirements, and were proposed only by the protester, the agency effectively assigned a value of $0. 3. In making its best value determination, the contracting officer properly declined to apply a threshold of savings that a non-incumbent offeror was required to surpass in order to be selected for award. 4. Where offerors' proposals were rated equal with regard to non-price evaluation factors, protester's assertion that a proper evaluation would have decreased, but not eliminated, the awardee's price advantage fails to state a valid basis for protest.

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