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/gaocrptabzr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
REDACTED VERSION*
Matter of: Loral Aeronutronic
File: B-259857.2; B-259858.2
Date: July 5, 1995
Francis J. O'Toole, Esq., Robert J. Conlan, Jr., Esq., and
Joseph C. Port, Jr., Esq., Sidley & Austin, for the
protester.
Thomas J. Madden, Esq., John J. Pavlick, Jr., Esq., Fernand
A. Lavallee, Esq., and Carla D. Craft, Esq., Venable,
Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, for Raytheon Company; and
Donald J. Kinlin, Esq., Thompson, Hine and Flory, for Hughes
Missile Systems Company, interested parties.
James I. Menapace, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the
agency.
Ralph 0. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation
of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protester's contention that agency selection officials
could not upgrade the evaluation assessments given by lower
level evaluators without a reevaluation of all proposals is
denied where the record shows that the selection officials
reasonably disagreed with the evaluators about the weight to
be accorded certain elements and subfactors in assigning an
overall assessment and made their adjustment in a manner
consistent with the evaluation scheme in the solicitation.
2. Challenge to adequacy of the cost realism adjustments
made to the awardee's proposal to reflect its high risk is
denied where the record shows that the agency made a
significant upward adjustment to address the high risk
nature of the proposal, and none of the protester's
assertions raises issues the agency did not consider, or
shows that the agency's approach to making these adjustments
was unreasonable.
*The decision issued July 5, 1995, contained confidential or
source selection sensitive information, and was subject to a
General Accounting Office protective order. This version of
the decision has been redacted. Deletions in text are
indicated by [DELETED].](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptabzr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)