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/gaocrptaubl0001 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: Raytheon Company, Space and Airborne Systems
File: B-298626.2, B-298626.3
Date: September 27, 2007
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., David S. Black, Esq., Michele Mintz Brown, Esq.,
Jennifer A. Short, Esq., and Allison V. Feierabend, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for
the protester.
W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq.,
Darren H. Lubetzky, Esq., and Edward Jackson, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, an intervenor.
Brian E. Toland, Esq., and Tina Marie Pixler, Esq., Department of the Army, for the
agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph 0. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Solicitation reasonably put protester on notice that performance of the
solicitation's aircraft service ceiling threshold capabilities would be considered in
evaluation of proposals.
2. Agency was reasonably concerned with protester's proposed approach to
performing service ceiling aircraft threshold capabilities in that the approach
involved protester's application of a new operational mode relying on [deleted].
3. Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as marginal under the air
vehicle subfactor, and as creating high performance risk, where protester failed to
provide data from engine manufacturer addressing the impact of protester's new
operational mode.
4. Protester's assertion that awardee's proposal contemplated use of [deleted]
similar to that of the protester's is without merit where record shows that awardee's
aircraft was able to perform threshold capabilities without [deleted], that use of
[deleted] was relied on by awardee to expedite task performance, and that awardee's
proposed use of [deleted] was consistent with the existing manufacturer
documentation for the aircraft engines.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaubl0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)