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

B-183463 1 (1975-09-23)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadcnb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DI:CISID\83 FILE: B-1834i THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL . /A .~ OF THE UNITEO STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 63 DATE:September 23,1975 MATTER OF: Bell Aerospace Company DIGEST: 1. Various changes made to specification requirements and eval- uation scheme after submission of initial best and final offers, resulting in additional calls for new best and final offers, does not indicate presence of auction bidding since record shows changes were based on legitimate Government needs which warranted reopening negotiations. Neither is auction indicated by fact that reduced price offered in revised best and final offers was not related to change, since offerors are free to re- vise proposals in any manner they deem appropriate'once nego- tiations are reopened. 2. Offeror's claim that agency showed favoritism toward other offeror by waiving certain specification requirements is not sup- ported by record, which shows only that one specification requirement was relaxed and such relaxation accommodated both offerors. 3. Series of specification changes and requests for new best and final offers did not cause technical leveling of proposals, which refers to unfair practice of helping an offeror bring unacceptable proposal up to level of other adequate proposals through successive rounds of negotiations, since only two pro- posals under consideration were both regarded as acceptable throughout testing and evaluation period and proposal which protester regards as having been' brought up to level of its proposal was regarded by agency as superior proposal. 4. Although cost was listed as the least important of four evalua- tion factors used in the evaluation of proposals leading to the award of fixed price contracts, protester's claim that cost was ignored by agency is incorrect, since cost was considered both in computation of numerical scoring and again in source selec- tion process. Since negotiated procurement was involved, award may be made to technically superior offeror, notwith- standing that offeror's higher price. 5. Normalization methodology used to compute dollar value of technical point spread between proposals did not conform to established relative weights and produced misleading result 1 :which could have affected source selection decision. There- 5 9 ..* fore, Comptroller General recommends that source selection decision be reconsidered on basis of appropriate computation. L q-7V 36

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