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

B-406926,B-406926.2,B-406926.3,B-406926.4,B-406926.5,B-406926.6 1 (2012-10-02)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadplu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




         G    A    O                                                  Comptroller General
      Acuntbiilty itgrity , ReIiabity                                 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

         Decision                                    approved for public releas e.


         Matter of. AT&T Government Solutions, Inc.

         File:        B-406926; B-406926.2; B-406926.3; B-406926.4; B-406926.5; B-406926.6

         Date:        October 2, 2012

         Alison L. Doyle, Esq., John W. Sorrenti, Esq., Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., and Andrea C.
         Fontana, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester.
         Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., James C. Cox, Esq., and Damien C. Specht, Esq., Jenner &
         Block LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc, an intervenor.
         Janet N. Repka, Esq., Andrew Bramnick, Esq., and Marina M. Kozmycz, Esq.,
         Department of Defense, for the agency.
         Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
         GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
         DIGEST

         1. In evaluating protester's proposal to provide services that included the proper
         handling of classified information, the agency reasonably downgraded the protester's
         proposal where the proposal itself improperly disclosed classified information.

         2. Protest that agency applied unstated evaluation criterion by assigning a weakness
         due to the proposal's disclosure of classified information is denied where the proper
         handling of classified information is intrinsic to the stated evaluation factors.

         3. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the
         record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
         evaluation criteria.

         4. Protester's assertions challenging the agency's past performance evaluation
         reflect mere disagreement with the agency's judgments where the record establishes
         that the agency reasonably considered relevant past performance information,
         recognized positive and negative aspects of the protester's past performance, and
         reasonably determined that two recent incidents involving the mishandling of
         classified information on a prior contract of comparable dollar value outweighed the
         protester's positive past performance.

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