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

B-287325 1 (2001-06-05)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptampi0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 Comptroller General SIntegrity Reliability of the United States ~ccountabthty Inert Rea iy 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. Decision Matter of: Oceaneering International, Inc. File: B-287325 Date: June 5, 2001 Daniel J. Riley, Esq., 0. Kevin Vincent, Esq., and Thomas B. Carr, Esq., Baker Botts, for the protester. Buel White, Esq., for Phoenix International, Inc., the intervenor. Andrew C. Saunders, Esq., Kelly Swartz, Esq., and John M. Davis, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Accounting Office's granting of an extension of the due date for the protester's comments on the agency report does not waive the timeliness requirements for filing a supplemental protest, and thus new and independent protest issues, first raised in comments submitted more than 10 days after receipt of the agency report on which the issues were based, are dismissed as untimely. 2. Agency reasonably evaluated the comparative degree of relevance of the past contract experience of offerors under the experience factor, and not under the past performance factor, consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. 3. Agency's determination that the corporate experience of the awardee was equivalent to that of the incumbent is reasonable where the awardee performed contract work very similar to the work required under the solicitation and where the awardee's proposed key management personnel possessed significant experience. 4. Agency was not required by the solicitation to contact sources of information relating to an offeror's past performance, but has the discretion to consider only the references listed in the proposal. 5. Agency may have a reasonable basis to consider one proposal superior to another under an evaluation factor, even though both proposals are awarded the same rating for the factor.

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