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

B-280774.2 1 (1998-11-24)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptahwv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision Matter of: R.C.O. Reforesting File: B-280774.2 Date: November 24, 1998 Roberto C. Ochoa for the protester. Alan D. Groesbeck, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Source selection official is not bound by the recommendations or evaluation judgments of lower-level evaluators, and notwithstanding protester's appeal of termination for default, contracting officer's reevaluation of proposal as acceptable rather than exceptional, based on termination for default, was reasonable and consistent with solicitation providing for consideration of past performance. 2. Where agency determined that it had only enough inspectors to administer two contracts and that there would be no value in awarding a third contract, with an additional minimum quantity guarantee, it had a reasonable basis for awarding only two contracts, rather than three, under solicitation providing for multiple awards. DECISION R.C.O. Reforesting protests the award of 5-year multitask contracts for reforesting work to Summitt Forests, Inc., and Redding Tree Growers Corp. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R5-14-98-039, issued by the Forest Service. R.C.O. alleges that the evaluation of proposals was improper and that the agency unreasonably declined to award a third contract, to the protester. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFP for award of fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for silviculture services--including tree planting, seeding, and precommercial thinning--within Six Rivers and Klamath National Forests. RFP §§ C.1(a), L.4; Determination for Award at 1. The RFP, §§ M.8, M.9, provided for consideration of technical factors, as well as price, which was to be secondary to technical factors in the selection decision. Technical factors included the following: record of past performance; technical approach; production capability and capacity; and organization/management. RFP § M.8(b). For the evaluation of past performance, section M.8(b)(1) of the solicitation required

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