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

B-295502 1 (2005-03-14)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaqui0001 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: Liberty Power Corporation

          File:        B-295502

          Date:        March 14, 2005

          J. Alex Ward, Esq., and Kali N. Bracey, Esq., Jenner & Block, for the protester.
          Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Jason N. Workmaster, Esq., McKenna, Long & Aldridge, for
          Pepco Energy Services, Inc.; Thomas C. Wheeler, Esq., Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., and
          Eliza P. Nagle, Esq., DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, for Constellation NewEnergy,
          Inc., intervenors.
          Richard R. Butterworth, Esq., General Services Administration, and Kenneth Dodds,
          Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.
          David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,
          participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          1. Where solicitation established an evaluation scheme providing for application of
          price evaluation adjustment on behalf of eligible small disadvantaged business (SDB)
          offerors, and agency, through its exchanges with protester prior to the submission of
          price proposals, led firm to believe that adjustment would be applied in the event
          that protester established its eligibility, agency cannot defend its failure to accord
          protester the preference on the basis that the preference in fact is not authorized;
          rather, having led protester to base its price proposal on the expectation that it
          would benefit from the SDB price evaluation adjustment if it established its
          eligibility, if agency believes adjustment is not authorized for this procurement,
          agency should amend the solicitation to delete adjustment and reopen discussions so
          as to permit offerors to submit revised proposals.

          2. Contracting officer's determination to deny a small disadvantaged business (SDB)
          concern the benefit of an SDB price evaluation adjustment essentially on the basis
          that the SDB could not comply with this provision must be referred to the Small
          Business Administration for final determination.

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