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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptabzt0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
258191
REDACTED VERSION*
Matter of: Combat Systems Development Associates Joint
Venture
File: B-259920.2
Date: June 13, 1995
William Weisberg, Esq., and William Welch, Esq., Barton
Mountain & Tolle, for the protester.
L. Graeme Bell III, Esq., and Christopher M. Farris, Esq.,
Crowell & Moring, for Vitro Corporation, an interested
party.
Margaret A. Alfano, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the
agency.
Ralph 0. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation
of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protester's contention that the agency conducted an
unreasonable cost realism review of the awardee's proposed
cuts to pay and benefits is denied where the record shows
that the agency reasonably concluded that the proposed cost
savings should be accepted because the awardee would be able
to unilaterally impose such cost-savings measures on its
employees, and where the record also shows that the agency
adequately reflected its concerns about the effects of the
pay cuts in its decision to downgrade the awardee's
technical proposal in two separate areas.
2. Challenge to agency's decision to accept the awardee's
level of proposed uncompensated overtime is sustained where
the record shows that despite the submission of a signed
certification from every employee promising to voluntarily
perform [DELETED] hours of uncompensated overtime each week,
the agency did not consider the fact that the awardee
intended to announce on the day of contract award
significant reductions in pay rates and fringe benefits,
calling into question the continued willingness of the
existing employees to voluntarily work additional hours
without compensation. The challenge is also sustained
*The decision issued on June 13, 1995, contained proprietary
information and was subject to a General Accounting Office
protective order. This version of the decision has been
redacted. Deletions in text are indicated by [DELETED].](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptabzt0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)