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/gaocrptahvt0001 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
GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
approved for public release.
Matter of: Cobra Technologies, Inc.
File: B-280475; B-280475.2; B-280475.3
Date: October 6, 1998
Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and John P. Walsh, Esq., Pompan,
Murray, Ruffner & Werfel, for the protester.
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Ferrell, Esq.,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, for HAI-WW, LLC, an intervenor.
Robert J. McCall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Peter A. Jannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Contracting agency reasonably rated awardee--a new joint venture--very high on
corporate experience where: (1) request for proposals stated that corporate
experience would measure the collective experience of an offeror's proposed
project team and that prior performance by company officers and predecessor
companies would be considered; (2) the two companies that formed the joint
venture had previously successfully performed together the same type of work
under separate contracts for the contracting agency at one of the four government
buildings that is the subject of the present contract; and (3) all of the awardee's
proposed employees have had significant relevant experience.
2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals and alleging that agency
failed to consider revisions contained in protester's best and final offer and to
upgrade protester's score based upon revisions is denied, where the record shows
that evaluation was reasonable and that evaluators were aware of protester's
revisions and, as a result, upgraded protester's score based upon some revisions but
not for others; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation provides no basis
to find the evaluation unreasonable.
3. Agency properly awarded contract to the offeror of the higher technically rated,
higher-priced proposal where the request for proposals stated that technical merit
and price would be given equal weight and the agency reasonably determined that
the extra technical merit of the awardee's proposal justified its higher price.
(Awardee's proposal was rated [deleted] percent higher than protester's on](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptahvt0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)