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

B-295569 1 (2005-03-10)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaqur0001 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: Scot, Inc.

          File:        B-295569; B-295569.2

          Date:        March 10, 2005

          Brian W. Craver, Esq., Person & Craver, for the protester.
          Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr., Esq., and Amy E. Laderberg, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for
          Gentex Corporation, an intervenor.
          Lenore K. Strakowsky, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
          Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
          Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          1. Protest that agency did not give sufficient weight to protester's superior warranty
          in selecting low-priced proposal for award based on a cost/technical tradeoff is
          denied, where agency reasonably determined in accordance with the solicitation that
          the warranty was not worth a price premium.

          2. Agency reasonably considered awardee's past performance to be relevant, even
          though it was on lower-priced contracts than protester's relevant contracts, where
          solicitation did not state that contract value was a consideration in determining
          relevance.

          3. Protest that awardee's price is unbalanced is denied, where the agency reasonably
          considered the risk to the government associated with the offerors' different pricing
          strategies, and properly determined that the government would pay less under the
          awardee's pricing approach than with the protester's and that the cost risk entailed
          in the awardee's approach was acceptable.

          4. Agency did not err in accepting expired offer for award without reopening
          negotiations where, despite the protester's assertion that it can now offer a lower
          price, the acceptance of the expired offer did not prejudice the competitive system
          or provide the awardee with an unfair competitive advantage.

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