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

B-272748 1 (1996-10-25)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaejt0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


oComptroller General
             of the United States
             Washington, D.C. 20548
             Decision                                  DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

                                                      A protected decision was issued on the date below
                                                      and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This
                                                      version has been redacted or approved by the parties
                                                      involved for public release.


              Matter of: Science & Technology, hie.; Madison Services, Inc.

              File:       B-272748; B-272748.2; B-272748.3; B-272748.4

              Date:       October 25, 1996

              E. Manning Seltzer, Esq., and Mark E. Davis, Esq., Seltzer & Rosen, for Science &
              Technology, Inc., and Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for Madison
              Services, Inc., the protesters.
              Nancy 0. Dix, Esq., Gray Cary Ware Freidenrich, for Steinhoff & Sadler, Inc., an
              interveno r.
              Major Michael J. O'Farrell and Gregory A. Lund, Esq., Department of the Army, for
              the agency.
              Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
              GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
              DIGEST

              1. Protest that contracting officials misrepresented protester's past performance
              record is denied where past performance conclusions are reasonably supported by
              the record, and there is no evidence that contracting officials were biased against
              the protester or otherwise acted in bad faith.

              2. Protest that awardee was improperly permitted to rely on subcontractors'
              experience under various technical evaluation factors is denied where the
              solicitation did not restrict offerors from proposing subcontractors or relying on
              their experience.

              3. Protest that contracting agency improperly relied on an unstated evaluation
              factor concerning offeror's phase-out approach is denied where the solicitation
              proposal preparation instructions clearly put offerors on notice that a detailed
              phase-out plan was required and would be evaluated under the general management
              evaluation factor.

              4. Protest that agency arbitrarily deducted points from second-ranked offeror's
              general management score is denied where the lower point score does not reflect
              deductions, but rather reflects what the agency reasonably determined was the level
              of quality indicated in this area of the offeror's proposal.


311318

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