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

B-299382 1 (2007-04-17)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptauel0001 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 version has been approved
                                                      for public release.

          Decision

          Matter of: C. Martin Company, Inc.

          File:        B-299382

          Date:        April 17, 2007

          Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, for the protester.
          Maj. Kevin J. Wilkinson, and Lt. Col. David L. Bell, Department of the Air Force, for
          the agency.
          Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Protester's contention that its proposal was improperly excluded from competition
          is denied where exclusion was based on agency's reasonable determination that
          proposal was technically unacceptable due to its inclusion of outdated regulations,
          procedures and requirements, indicating a lack of understanding or awareness of
          solicitation requirements.
          DECISION

          C. Martin Company, Inc. (CMC) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
          competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4890-06-R-0153, issued by the
          Department of the Air Force for maintenance and operation of the Air Force's
          Primary Training Ranges. CMC maintains that any deficiencies in its proposal were
          minor, and that it should have been provided an opportunity to correct them.

          We deny the protest.

          The RFP, issued on October 17, 2006 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the
          award of a fixed-price contract for a 6-month base period, with five 1-year options.
          The RFP provided for a three-step evaluation. First, technical proposals were to be
          evaluated as acceptable, reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or
          unacceptable based on five evaluation criteria: program management, transition
          plan, maintenance/logistics, quality, and operations approach. RFP at 108-111. An
          unacceptable rating under any criterion would render the technical proposal
          unacceptable, and the proposal would no longer be considered for award. RFP
          at 108. Second, the agency would evaluate the price reasonableness of the remaining
          proposals, and then rank them according to overall evaluated price. Third, the

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