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/gaobadbha0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
G A 0 Comptroller General
Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
D ..
Decision
Matter of: Nippo Corporation
File: B-402363.2
Date: May 5, 2010
Kohei Kawabata for the protester.
Javier E. Gonzalez, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency misevaluated protester's proposal, failed to consider protester's
lower price as a significant advantage, and failed to document basis for source
selection decision is denied, where record supports evaluation and documents a
thorough consideration of both technical and price factors, and the judgments made
in the tradeoff.
DECISION
Nippo Corporation, of Tokyo, Japan, protests the award of a contract to Toa
Corporation, of Fukuoka, Japan, under Department of the Navy request for
proposals (RFP) No. N40084-09-R-6504, for revitalization of townhouses at Sasebo,
Japan. Nippo argues that the Navy misevaluated its technical and price proposals
and made an unreasonable source selection decision.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The Navy issued the RFP on April 23, 2009, seeking proposals to revitalize
176 residential units in Sasebo, Japan. The RFP provided that a fixed-price
design-build contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represented
the best value based on an evaluation under two equally-weighted factors:
technical and price. The technical factor included five equally-weighted subfactors:
past performance, design concept, management/key personnel, experience, and
schedule. RFP at 12. The RFP explained that the evaluation under the design
concept subfactor would be a subjective assessment of the offeror's design scheme
in terms of functional[ity], durab[ility], and esthetic[s]. RFP at 16.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadbha0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)