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

B-400500.8,B-400500.9 1 (2009-12-14)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadbec0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ,G A O Comptroller General LXn , 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: Velos, Inc. File: B-400500.8; B-400500.9 Date: December 14, 2009 C. Joel Van Over, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., and Kelley P. Doran, Esq., Shook Doran Koehl LLP, for Medidata Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., Sheryl Rakestraw, Esq., and James L. Weiner, Esq., Department of the Interior, 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 1. Source selection decision, which concluded that the awardee's proposal for providing software was technically superior to the protester's proposal because of one aspect of the software, was unreasonable where the agency's technical evaluation panel had determined that this aspect of the software did not change the panel's determination that the proposals were technically equal and the source selection decision was substantially based on the evaluation of a consultant (not a panel member), who only considered the offerors' responses to a discussion question on this point and did not consider existing relevant information included in the panel's evaluation report and the offerors' proposals. 2. Performance risk assigned to the protester's proposal for failing to provide a more current Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) report was unreasonable where the contracting officer did not question the financial viability of the protester or the accuracy of the information in the report and only relied on the currency of the date on the D&B report to assign the rating. 3. Contracting officer's decision not to evaluate the protester's alternate technical and price proposals contained in its final proposal revisions (FPR) was reasonable where the agency expressly advised offerors in the request for FPR that it would not consider any revisions to the technical proposals or price, except for matters relating to software license and escrow provision.

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