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

B-414844,B-414844.2,B-414844.3 1 (2017-10-02)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadubf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States ....................................................................................................................... DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to Decision a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: ENSCO, Inc.; PAE National Security Solutions LLC File: B-414844; B-414844.2; B-414844.3 Date: October 2, 2017 John E. Jensen, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Travis L. Mullaney, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for ENSCO, Inc., a protester; Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Jonathan M. Baker, Esq., Hart W. Wood, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for PAE National Security Solutions LLC, a protester. Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Mark Wishner, Esq., Ryan Bradel, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for CENTRA Technology, Inc., the intervenor. Debra B. Haworth, Esq., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the evaluation of the awardee's proposal are sustained where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and not in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, and where the agency failed to adequately document its cost realism evaluation. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably assigned significant weaknesses to a protester's proposal is sustained where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and not in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 3. Protest that the agency improperly permitted the awardee to exceed the page limits for resumes in the firm's proposal is sustained where the resumes, on their face, exceeded the page limits stated in the solicitation, and the agency's argument that it properly could conclude that the resumes met the requirement by extracting and manipulating the size of the text (and the margins) of the awardee's proposal in order to satisfy the page limitation is unreasonable. 4. Protest arguing that the agency unreasonably failed to recognize various strengths in the protester's technical proposal is denied where the agency's decision not to assign strengths was within its discretion.

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