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

B-418870.6,B-418870.7 1 (2020-10-30)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaebyv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAiOU.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: Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC File: B-418870.6; B-418870.7 Date: October 30, 2020 Kevin J. Maynard, Esq., Kendra Perkins Norwood, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and George Petel, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation; and James C. Fontana, Esq., Jeffry R. Cook, Esq., L. James D'Agostino, Esq., and David B. Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey Fontana, PLLC, for F.H. Cann & Associates, the intervenors. Megan R. Nathan, Esq., and John W. Kim, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency failed to follow the solicitation's evaluation scheme in rating the protester's proposal unacceptable under the technical approach factor, despite the proposal receiving a strength under the most important subfactor, is denied where the proposal was evaluated as creating an unacceptable risk under two technical subfactors, and the solicitation provided that a rating of unacceptable risk under one subfactor could result in the technical proposal being unacceptable. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably rated proposal as presenting an unacceptable risk under the consumer protection laws subfactor is denied where the proposal addressed adherence to federal laws generally, but not to consumer protection laws specifically, despite a solicitation requirement to address consumer protection laws. 3. Protest that agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the evaluation of the protester's and awardee's proposals was consistent with the solicitation. 4. Protester is not an interested party to challenge the evaluation of awardees' past performance where protester is not eligible for award.

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