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

B-282271 1 (1999-06-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajji0001 and id is 1 raw text is: -e GeAtOa __Comptroller General of the United States United States General Accounting Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 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: AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc. File: B-282271; B-282271.2 Date: June 21, 1999 Leonard Egan, Esq., Marcus B. Slater, Esq., and Jennifer J. Zeien, Esq., Slater & Zeien, for the protester. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as acceptable, rather than outstanding, under the c apability/relevant past perfo rmanc e subfac to r, where the protester's proposal demonstrated extensive relevant experience but the agency received negative past performance information. 2. Protester is not an interested party to protest the evaluation of the awardee's proposal where the protester's proposal was properly rated and there is an offeror who se pro po sal is higher rated and lo wer priced than the pro tester's, because the protester would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained. 3. Agency did not misuse the pre-award survey process in ascertaining that the awardee's proposal may not comply with a material term of the contract and subsequently conducting discussions to resolve this problem with all competitive range offerors, including the protester. 4. Agency's clarification of the awardee's technically acceptable subcontracting plan after source selection and prior to contract award did not constitute discussions, since the ultimate approval of a subcontracting plan involves a question of responsibility. 5. Agency's best value decision properly did not consider certain factors not contemplated by the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme.

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