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

B-284119.2 1 (2000-02-25)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptakzo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: -e GeAtOa __Comptroller General of the United States United States General Accounting Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: NVServices File: B-284119.2 Date: February 25, 2000 Ronald K Henry, Esq., and Larry J. Gusman, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Jennifer E. McDougal, Esq., and Grady L. Shields, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, and Frank M. Rapoport, Esq., Pepper Hamilton, for LB&B Associates, Inc., the intervenor. Bernard J. Roan, Esq., National Aeronautics & Space Administration, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's cost realism analysis erred in calculating the probable cost of the awardee's proposal because the proposal did not account for the provision of safety equipment, employee training, and phase-out costs, all of which were required by the solicitation for a cost-plus-award-fee services contract; however, the protester was not prejudiced by this misevaluation because the awardee's evaluated probable costs were still substantially less than, and its proposal was technically superior to, the protester's proposal. 2. Protest that the agency should have downgraded the awardee's technical proposal for failing to identify specific personnel available for contract performance is denied, where the solicitation, as amended, did not require such a staffing plan. 3. Challenge to the agency's evaluation of the protester's and awardee's past performance is denied, where the agency based its judgment upon information in the offerors' proposals and received from references identified by the offerors, and the protester does not demonstrate that the agency's judgment was unreasonable. 4. Agency is not required to conduct discussions with the offerors where the solicitation advised that the agency intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions and the record was adequate to allow the agency to make its best value determination.

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