About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-294358.6 1 (2005-04-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaqsm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




A         G    A    O                                                   Comptroller General
.       Accountability * Integrity * Reliability                        of the United States
United States Government Accountability 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: University Research Company, LLC

          File:        B-294358.6; B-294358.7

          Date:        April 20, 2005

          John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Edmund M. Amorosi, Esq.,
          Sophia R. Zetterlund, Esq., and Erin R. Karsman, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter &
          Allen, and Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for
          the protester.
          Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., John E. Jensen, Esq., Daniel S. Herzfeld, Esq., and Orest J.
          Jowyk, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, for IQ Solutions, Inc., an intervenor.
          Mogy E. Omatete, Esq., and Douglas Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and
          Human Services, for the agency.
          Ralph 0. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          1. Protest challenging selection official's treatment of concerns raised by agency
          project officers, under provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services
          (HHS) Acquisition Regulation which anticipate that selection officials will receive
          input from agency project officers in addition to the input received from a traditional
          evaluation panel, is denied where the selection official's award decision document
          acknowledges receipt of the project officers' views (which recommended award to
          the protester), makes reasonable changes in the selection analysis in response to
          those concerns, and, in some cases, makes no change because the selection official
          reasonably decides to adopt the views of the evaluation panel on matters more
          appropriate for evaluator review.

          2. The principle that selection officials are not bound by the recommendations or
          evaluation judgments of lower-level evaluators applies equally to evaluation input
          received from project officers in procurements conducted under HHS procedures;
          HHS selection officials are no more bound by the views of agency project officers
          than they are by the views of agency evaluators.

          3. Protester's contention that agency past performance evaluation was unreasonable
          because the agency did not distinguish between degrees of relevance in evaluating
          each offeror's past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, and

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most