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/gaobadjvl0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
~ I THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES
WAS H INGTO N, a.C. 20548
LWITIO-
FILE: B-199741.3 DATE: October 26,1981
MATTER OF: Lockheed Corporation--Reconsideration
DIGEST:
GAO finds no merit in protester's contention
that narrative analysis portion of the
agency's technical evaluation report to the
Source Selection Official contradicts con-
clusion in prior protest decision that it
was not unreasonable for the Source Selec-
tion Official to make award to second-ranked
offeror in order to take advantage of that
offeror's lower cost. The narrative analysis
in the report clearly showed that second-
ranked offeror, like protester, would have
little difficulty in performing the contract.
A
Lockheed Corporation (Lockheed) requests
reconsideration of our decision in Lockheed Corpora-
tion, B-199741.2, July 31, 1981, 81-2 CPD 71, denying
its protest concerning request for proposals (RFP)
No. DOT-FR-936500 issued by the Department of Trans-
]portation (DOT), Federal Railroad Administration.
Lockheed had contended that DOT did not adhere
to the stated RFP evaluation criteria in making an
award to an offeror whose proposal had not received
the highest technical score and whose technical/cost
relationship was not the most advantageous to the
Government. Lockheed had emphasized that, under the
RFP's evaluation scheme, cost was a less significant
factor than the technical proposal score. According
to Lockheed, had DOT's Source Selection Official made
an award on the RFP's criteria of (1) technical accept-
ability and (2) technical/cost relationship most advan-
tageous to the Government, Lockheed would have been
the successful offeror. Lockheed had asserted that
this should have been the proper conclusion because its
final technical score of 70.51 out of 100 was nearly
15 percent higher than Boeing Services International
Inc.'s (Boeing) score of 61.13 and there was only about
2.9 percent difference in evaluated costs (excluding
fee) between the two companies.
I 6q 3](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadjvl0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)