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

B-277538.2 1 (1998-04-28)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptahmj0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


oComptroller General
             of the United States
             Washington, D.C. 20548
             Decision




             Matter of: Command Technology, hie.

             File:       B-277538.2

             Date:       April 28, 1998

             Igor Boris for the protester.
             Kathy B. Cowley, Esq., and Maria Bellizzi, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the
             agency.
             Christine F. Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
             Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
             DIGEST

             In making multiple awards on the basis of a price/technical tradeoff, agency
             reasonably determined that one awardee's significant price advantage overcame the
             minor technical advantages afforded by the protester's proposal, while another
             awardee's significant technical advantage overcame the slight price advantage of the
             protester's proposal.
             DECISION

             Command Technology, Inc. (CTI) protests its failure to receive an award under
             request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-96-R-3241, issued by the Department of the
             Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, for scanning and conversion services in
             support of the Defense Automated Printing Service.

             We deny the protest.

             The RFP contemplated the award of one or more contracts for the conversion of
             documents in a paper or microform format to an electronic data base. RFP § M.1.
             The RFP provided for the award(s) to be made on a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity,
             indefinite-delivery basis for a base year plus 4 option years. RFP §§ B, L.17.

             The RFP advised that the government may elect to pay a price premium to select a
             technically superior proposal for award. RFP § M.3(e). The RFP evaluation factors
             were (1) past performance, (2) technical understanding and approach/oral
             presentation, and (3) price, including options. RFP §§ M.2(a), M.6, M.7. Past
             performance was the most important factor, and the combined weight of the past
             performance factor and the technical understanding and approach/oral presentation
             factor was significantly more important than price. RFP §§ M.3(d), M.7(a).

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