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

B-281388 1 (1999-02-03)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajgp0001 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: OMV Medical, Inc.; Saratoga Medical Center, Inc.

             File:        B-281388; B-281388.2; B-281388.3

             Date:        February 3, 1999

             Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Frank K Peterson, Esq., Holland & Knight, for OM
             Medical, Inc.; and Norman J. Philion, Esq., Peter A. Greene, Esq., Edward V.
             Hickey, III, Esq., and Danielle E. Berry, Esq., Thompson, line & Flory, for Saratoga
             Medical Center, Inc., the protesters.
             Jonathan M. Bailey, Esq., for Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., an
             interveno r.
             Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., and Capt. David A. Whiteford, Department of the Air
             Force, for the agency.
             Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
             GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
             DIGEST

             1. Determination to select lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for award
             of contract, and determination that the awardee's prices were realistic are
             unobjectionable where both determinations were made in a manner consistent with
             the evaluation criteria, and the awardee's professional compensation plan and base
             salaries compared favorably with other offerors and with the current average annual
             salary standard.

             2. Agency did not relax solicitation's adequate compensation requirements and did
             not misleadingly cause offeror to maintain (rather than lower) its proposed
             professional compensation, where the agency was consistent in the concerns it
             raised with offerors about professional compensation, and made award to an offeror
             whose professional compensation compared favorably with the current average
             salary standard and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook,
             and was actually higher than the protester's.

             3. Firms which offered the third and fourth lowest prices of six technically equal
             proposals are not interested parties to protest that the contracting agency
             improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal since, as provided by the solicitation,

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