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

B-290113 1 (2002-06-10)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaoen0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 Comptroller General Accountability * Integrity* Reliability 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. Decision Matter of: Snell Enterprises, Inc. File: B-290113; B-290113.2 Date: June 10, 2002 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., and Maureen A. Kersey, Esq., Piper Rudnick, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for Impact Innovations Group, Inc., an intervenor. Mary E. Clarke, Esq., and Thomas Tinti, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that a firm should be excluded from competition under a solicitation for information technology services because it assisted in the preparation of the solicitation is denied, where the allegation is based on inference and suspicion rather than substantial facts or hard evidence, and the agency unequivocally and credibly asserts that the firm did not assist in the preparation of the solicitation. 2. Protest that a firm should be excluded from competition under a solicitation for information technology services because the firm, through its performance of a delivery order for the agency, was given access to information that the protester now claims as proprietary, is denied, where the information was furnished voluntarily and without restrictions on its use. 3. With regard to a solicitation that consolidates services previously performed by two contractors under separate delivery orders into one contract, protest by one of the contractors that the other contractor (a competitor) gained an unfair competitive advantage by obtaining from the agency the names and home telephone numbers of the contractor's employees is denied where the contractor's competitor was already familiar with the contractor's employees and there is thus no indication that the agency's actions resulted in any unfair competitive advantage. 4. Prior performance of similar requirements by a firm does not give rise to a prohibited conflict of interest or provide an unfair competitive advantage where any advantage the firm may have is merely that of an incumbent contractor.

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