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/gaocrptamrp0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
I
G A O Comptroller General
Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Decision
Matter of: Chart Industries, Inc.
File: B-288248
Date: September 28, 2001
Don Debelak for the protester.
James L. Weiner, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the
agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency's downgrading of protester's technical proposal is unobjectionable where the
record establishes that the evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation criteria; protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation does
not render the evaluation unreasonable.
DECISION
Chart Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NorthStar, Inc. under
request for proposals (RFP) No. N1248-01-0007, issued by the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, for the construction of a natural gas fueling station at
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Chart contends that the agency's evaluation
of its technical proposal was unreasonable.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued March 15, 2001 and amended April 24, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract for the construction of a compressed natural gas and liquefied
natural gas fueling station, with four 1-year options for maintenance. The evaluation
factors were cost, worth 40 points, and technical, worth 60 points. The technical
subfactors were: implementation and operation plan (including station design,
installation, start-up, operations, and maintenance), worth 30 points; experience of
firm and key staff, worth 15 points; and past performance on similar contracts, worth
15 points. The RFP also specified that offerors should ensure that their [technical]
proposals are clear, concise, and fully address all of the evaluation factors, and that](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptamrp0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)