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/gaocrptadre0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision REDACTED DECISION
A protected decision was issued on the date below
and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This
version has been redacted or approved by the parties
involved for public release..
Matter of: TDS, Inc.
File: B-261827.3
Date: February 1, 1996
Brian A. Darst, Esq., Lee P. Curtis, Esq., and William Roberts III, Esq., Howrey &
Simon, for the protester.
Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., and Howard W. Roth III, Esq., Vandeventer, Black,
Meredith & Martin, for MILCOM Systems Corporation, an interested party.
Michael S. Roys, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Agency could properly make award on basis of initial proposals where
solicitation advised offerors of this possibility and contracting officer's decision not
to engage in discussions was reasonable.
2. Protest that agency misevaluated cost proposals by upwardly adjusting
protester's proposed cost and conversely failing to upwardly adjust awardee's
proposed cost in certain cost elements, with result that protester's cost was higher
than awardee's is denied, where upward adjustment of protester's cost was
unobjectionable in the two challenged elements; evaluation of awardee's cost was
unobjectionable in three of four challenged elements; and agency's calculated
increase of [deleted] in fourth challenged element would not displace awardee as
low offeror.
3. Protest that technical proposals were misevaluated and protester's lower-rated
proposal should have been rated equal to awardee's higher-rated proposal need not
be considered when, even assuming proposals should have been rated technically
equal, solicitation provided that price would be controlling factor for substantially
equal technical proposals, protester's evaluated cost was not low, and cost realism
evaluation is unobjectionable.
DECISION
TDS, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy's award of a contract to MILCOM
Systems Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00612-94-R-8405, for
115938](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptadre0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)