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/gaobacyow0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
I
G A 0 Comptroller General
........ Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States General Accounting 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: USIA Underwater Equipment Sales Corporation
File: B-292827.2
Date: January 30, 2004
Shelton H. Skolnick, Esq., Skolnick & Leishman, for the protester.
Capt. Richard M. Sudder, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protester's proposal was properly rejected where its sample fabric failed a pass/fail
test conducted by a certified and accredited laboratory.
DECISION
USIA Underwater Equipment Sales Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal
under request for proposals (RFP) No. USZA22-03-R-0035, issued by the United
States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), MacDill Air Force Base (AFB),
Florida, for maritime assault suit systems (MASS).
We deny the protest.
The RFP was to procure [c]ommercial off the shelf [MASS,] consisting of an
over-garment with neck ring, repair kit and user manual, which can be used as a
combat suit in maritime, terrestrial, airborne, shipboard, and transitional
environments by the U.S. Navy, under a 5-year, fixed-price, indefinite-
delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. RFP at 12.
The RFP provided that award would be made on a best-value basis, considering
technical, price, and past performance, listed in descending order of importance.
The technical evaluation was to done in two parts: (1) a preliminary laboratory
evaluation and (2) a full technical proposal evaluation. The RFP stated that the
proposed/submitted materials should meet minimum Preliminary Laboratory
Evaluation requirements ... in order to be considered for the Full Technical
Proposal Evaluation and thus the award; that that preliminary evaluation was on a
pass/fail basis against seven specifically stated pass/fail standards; and that](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobacyow0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)