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

B-405608 1 (2011-12-05)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadomy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 Comptroller General lAccoauntability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been D e c is io n .apEoved for publicrelease .-------------------------------------------- Matter of: ITT Electronic Systems Radar, Reconnaissance & Acoustic Systems File: B-405608 Date: December 5, 2011 Paul A. Debolt, Esq., Dismas N. Locaria, Esq., Melanie Totman, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., George W. Wyatt, IV, Esq., and Brenden M. Lill, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. William W. Thompson, Esq., Lori Ann Lange, Esq., and Aaron S. Brotman, Esq., Peckar & Abramson, for Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, an intervenor. Marvin Kent Gibbs, Esq., and Sean M. Hannaway, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated awardee's proposal as superior to protester's proposal under the most important evaluation factor, mission capability, based on the agency's determination that awardee's proposal offered technology that exceeded the solicitation requirements and would benefit the government. 2. Agency reasonably assigned an unknown confidence rating to protester's proposal under the past performance evaluation factor where the agency properly considered the dollar value of protester's prior contracts, as well as the dissimilarity of technology and type of effort that had been previously provided, and concluded that the past performance information formed an insufficient basis for making a substantive performance confidence assessment. 3. Protester's assertion that agency should have upwardly adjusted the price that awardee proposed under fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs) is without merit where such adjustment is precluded by law, and the terms of the solicitation expressly provided that any evaluated risk associated with fixed-price CLINs would be reflected in the agency's evaluation under the mission capability evaluation factor.

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