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

B-281453 1 (1999-02-17)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajgv0001 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: Orbital Technologies Corporation File: B-281453; B-281453.2; B-281453.3 Date: February 17, 1999 S. Gregg Kunzi, Esq., and Thomas L. McGovern III, Esq., Hogan & Hartson; and David F. Grams, Esq., David F. Grams & Associates, for the protester. John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of technical proposals submitted in response to solicitation for research and development support services is denied where the protest evidences the protester's mere disagreement with the results of the evaluation and there is no basis on which to find that the evaluation was unreasonable. 2. Allegation that agency conducted an unreasonable evaluation of past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency evaluation was proper and in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation factors. 3. Protester's arguments that the cost realism adjustments made to the awardee's proposed labor costs were improper are denied where the record shows that the agency had a reasonable basis for its cost evaluation. DECISION Orbital Technologies Corporation protests the award of a contract to ERC, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04611-98-R-0025, issued by the Department of the Air Force, as a total small business set-aside, for research in propulsion sciences (RPS) at Edwards Air Force Base, California.1 The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection decision were unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation. 1This acquisition was conducted under the test case program for the proposed draft Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) § 5315.1, entitled Source Selection Processes and Techniques, dated November 21, 1997, and the draft AF Source Selection Procedures, dated November 14, 1997 (both hereinafter referred to as Draft AFFARS). RFP § M-2.

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