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

B-278126 1 (1997-12-31)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptagew0001 and id is 1 raw text is: oComptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a I GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Oceaneering International, Inc. File: B-278126; B-278126.2 Date: December 31, 1997 Daniel J. Riley, Esq., and Stan Hinton, Esq., Baker & Botts, for the protester. Buel White, Esq., and Brian Cohen, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for Phoenix Marine, Inc., an intervenor. Veronica Murtha, Esq., and James Menapace, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 2. Allegation that awardee should have been disqualified as nonresponsible for failure to demonstrate possession of a specific line of credit is dismissed where the requirement for financial capability at issue is not set forth in the form of a definitive responsibility criterion. DECISION Oceaneering International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Phoenix Marine, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-97-R-4025(Q) issued by the Department of the Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) for world-wide diving and diving-related services. Oceaneering challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals and argues that Phoenix Marine did not comply with a definitive responsibility criterion.1 1Oceaneering also alleges that Phoenix Marine is ineligible for award because it improperly obtained Oceaneering's proposal information before the award of the contract in violation of the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. § 423 (1994). Specifically, Oceaneering protests that several of its key employees who played significant roles in the development of Oceaneering's proposal were also involved, (continued...)

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