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

B-278695 1 (1998-03-04)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptahpt0001 and id is 1 raw text is: oComptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a I GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Modern Technologies Corp.; Innovative Technologies Corp.; Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Camber Corp. File: B-278695; B-278695.2; B-278695.3; B-278695.4; B-278695.5; B-278695.6 Date: March 4, 1998 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Modern Technologies Corp.; Douglas N. Harty, Esq., for Innovative Technologies Corp.; Norman H. Singer, Esq., Rudnick, Wolfe, Epstien & Zeidman, for Information Systems & Networks Corp.; and Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and Laura J. Mann, Esq., Alan M. Grayson and Associates, for Camber Corp., the protesters. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Eun K Chung, Esq., and Christina M. Pirrello, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, for SEMCOR, Inc.; Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Holland & Knight, for RJO Enterprises, Inc.; and John E. Jensen, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., the intervenors. Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Terrance J. Moran, Esq., Scott W. Singer, Esq., William D. Cavanaugh, Esq., Janice C. Beckett, Esq., Alvin Chase, Esq., Deborah Muldoon, Esq., and Jennifer L. Grimm, Esq., Department of the Air Force, 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. Protesters' contentions that agency unreasonably evaluated awardees' and protesters' proposals are denied where the record shows the agency evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protester's contention that its strong performance as the current incumbent should be reflected in the evaluation of its proposal, and that as the incumbent it should receive extra credit in its past performance evaluation is denied where the record shows that the agency appropriately evaluated the proposal based on the merits of the proposal itself, and reasonably gave the highest possible past performance rating--but not extra credit--to the protester and to other offerors who had strong past performance references, even though the other offerors had not served as the incumbent for these services. 3. Protester's argument that the agency is required to perform a cost analysis is denied where the agency is awarding a time-and-materials contract and reasonably

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