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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajkv0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
-e GeAtOa
__Comptroller General
of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Decision
Matter of: Infrared Technologies Corporation
File: B-282912
Date: September 2, 1999
Carlo s Ghiglio tty for the pro tester.
Ben Hall for Systems Energy Audit Company, Inc., an intervenor.
David W. Beale, Esq., Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the
agency.
Susan K McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency reasonably made award to the offeror whose proposal was substantially
lower-priced and was found technically superior where the record shows that the
evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.
DECISION
Infrared Technologies Corporation (1TC) protests the award of a contract to Systems
Energy Audit Company, Inc. (SEA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N32205-
99-R-6086, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command (MSC),
for thermographic inspection services onboard MSC vessels. 1TC, among other
allegations, contends that the evaluation of proposals was improper.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued on March 30, 1999, as a small business set-aside, sought proposals
for the thermographic inspection of shipboard equipment, involving the use of
infrared photography to detect system anomalies, such as excess heat or wear. The
RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity
contract for a base year and 4 option years. RFP §§ B, L-4. Section M-1 of the RFP
provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined
to provide the best overall value to the government. Section M-1 also advised
o ffero rs that [all] evaluation fac to rs o ther than c o st o r price when c o mbined, are
approximately equal to cost or price. The Government may award to a higher priced
proposal if it affords the Government greater overall benefit.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptajkv0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)