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

B-281484.2 1 (1999-03-29)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajgx0001 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: Medical Development International File: B-281484.2 Date: March 29, 1999 Timothy E. Heffernan, Esq., and Peter L. Vanderloo, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, for the protester. Thomas C. Papson, Esq., and Richard P. Castiglia, Jr., Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for University of North Texas Health Science Center, an intervenor. Katherine A. Day, Esq., Department of Justice, 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. Protester's contention that agency wrongly gave additional evaluation credit to a feature of the awardee's proposal that exceeded the solicitation's minimum requirements is denied where detailed technical proposals were sought, technical evaluation criteria were used to make comparative judgments about the relative merits of competing proposals, and the judgments made and credit given were consistent with the stated evaluation factors. 2. Protest that awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by employing a former government employee who had input into developing the solicitation is denied where the employee's input was limited to participating in changes to an existing boilerplate solicitation; the employee left government service almost a full year before the solicitation was issued; and there is no showing that the employee ever received access to the content of proposals, or other inside information sufficient to establish an unfair competitive advantage. 3. Contention that a price/technical tradeoff in a best value procurement improperly abandoned a predetermined tradeoff formula is denied where--although the solicitation did call for scoring price proposals--there was no indication in the solicitation that award would be made to the offeror receiving the highest overall point score, and where the contracting officer reasonably determined that despite the higher overall score given the protester's technically lower-rated, lowest-priced pro po sal, the awarde e's technic ally higher-rated, higher-priced pro po sal presented the best value to the government.

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