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/gaocrptamst0001 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: Wyle Laboratories, Inc.
File: B-288892; B-288892.2
Date: December 19, 2001
Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and Jance R. Hawkins, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the
protester.
Michael L. Sterling, Esq., Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., and Walter T. Camp, Esq.,
Vandeventer Black, for the Bionetics Corporation, an intervenor.
Gregory Petkoff, Esq., and Paul S. Davison, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for
the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Contracting agency reasonably determined that contractor's performance of both
a contract for operation of the agency's highest echelon calibration laboratory and a
contract for operation of lower echelon calibration laboratories did not pose an
organizational conflict of interest where government personnel who are responsible
for monitoring and measuring contractor performance under both contracts rely
primarily on information other than feedback from other contractors in performing
these functions.
2. Protest alleging that agency unreasonably failed to recognize several positive
aspects of protester's proposal as strengths is denied where protester fails to
demonstrate that agency's assessment of the significance of these aspects of its
proposal was unreasonable.
3. Protest alleging that agency should have adjusted awardee's cost proposal
upward to account for its offering of a lower fringe benefit rate than the rate paid by
the incumbent contractor is denied where agency reasonably determined that the
awardee's proposed fringe benefit rate, which was [deleted] the rate required in the
Department of Labor wage determination included in the solicitation, was realistic.
DECISION](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptamst0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)