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

B-410214.3 1 (2015-03-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadrcy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




 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 approvedfor public release.
          Decision


          Matter of:   Lanmark Technology, Inc.

          File:        B-410214.3

          Date:     March 20, 2015

          Theodore P. Watson, Esq., Nicole L. Carter, Esq., and Leanna Ajour, Esq., Watson
          & Associates, LLC, for the protester.
          Craig S. King, Esq., Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq., Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., and
          Christopher Bowen, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the intervenor.
          Maj. Michael G. Pond, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the
          agency.
          Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's technical proposal
          is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated
          evaluation criteria, and adequately documented.

          2. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's technical proposal
          is denied where the record reflects that the agency did not improperly evaluate the
          awardee's proposal, as asserted by the protester, based on the technical expertise
          of the awardee's parent company and an affiliated company.

          3. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance
          is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
          evaluation criteria.

          4. Agency's selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is
          unobjectionable where the agency's tradeoff decision was reasonable, and where
          the agency adequately documented its tradeoff rationale.
          DECISION

          Lanmark Technology, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to
          CACI-Athena, of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposal (RFP) No. HQ0682-
          14-R-0002, issued by the Department of Defense, Joint Improvised Explosive

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