About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-310553 1 (2007-12-27)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaukd0001 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: Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. File: B-310553 Date: December 27, 2007 L. James D'Agostino, Esq., and Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Agnes P. Dover, Esq., Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Andrew C. Ertley, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for Logistic Health, Inc., an intervenor. MAJ Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's technical proposal was unobjectionable where, after discussions, agency reasonably determined that protester failed to correct identified weaknesses in technical approach; in particular, downgrading based on loss of proposed subcontractor after proposal submission was reasonable where loss of subcontractor reasonably was found to significantly impact protester's ability to provide certain health care specialists. 2. Agency reasonably determined that awardee's loss of proposed subcontractor after proposal submission did not warrant downgrading proposal--despite assessing weakness and revising strength associated with subcontractor in initial evaluation-- where agency reasonably concluded that loss of subcontractor was not significant in light of awardee's substantial other proposed resources. 3. Agency provided meaningful discussions where, in response to failure of protester's initial proposal to address all statement of work requirements, it asked protester to describe and more fully explain identified processes, thereby leading protester into areas of its proposal that required amplification. 4. Agency's evaluation of awardee's price as reasonable was unobjectionable where evaluation was based on comparison of prices received and comparison of individual line item prices to independent government cost estimates (IGCE) for low and high ranges of estimated costs, and awardee's price--though higher than average IGCE-- was lower than high range IGCE.

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:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most