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/gaocrptafsf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
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: Dynalantic Corporation
File: B-274944.2
Date: February 25, 1997
John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Christina M. Pirrello, Esq.,
Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, P.L.C., for the protester.
Thomas A. Eff, Esq., for Marine Safety International, the intervenor.
Brian F. Zeck, Esq., Kathy B. Cowley, Esq., and Eric A. Lile, Esq., Department of the
Navy, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Exclusion of proposal from the competitive range without discussions, thereby
leaving a competitive range of one, is not reasonable where: (1) the deficiencies
cited are minor in relation to the scope of work and the revisions necessary to
correct them; and (2) excluded offeror's price is [deleted] million lower than sole
remaining offeror's.
DECISION
Dynalantic Corporation protests the award of a contract to Marine Safety
International (MSI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-96-R-0749, issued
by the Department of the Navy for ship handling simulation services. Dynalantic
contends that it was improperly excluded from the competitive range without
discussions based on an unreasonable technical evaluation.
We sustain the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP was issued on February 7, 1996 and contemplated the award of an
indefinite-quantity fixed-price contract for a base year and 9 option years to the
offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government. The solicitation
required offerors to submit technical proposals organized according to the following
technical evaluation factors, which were listed in the RFP in descending order of
341310](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptafsf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)