About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-291568 1 (2003-01-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacyeh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: I G A 0Comptroller General A- Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Matter of: A-1 Service Company, Inc. File: B-291568 Date: January 16, 2003 J. Hatcher Graham, Esq., McManus & Graham, for the protester. John D. Inazu, Esq., and Capt. Christopher L. McMahon, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is unobjectionable where the proposal failed to adequately address solicitation requirements even after protester had been apprised of the concerns repeatedly during discussions. DECISION A-1 Service Company, Inc. (A-1) protests the award of a contract to L.C. Gaskins Construction Company, Inc. (LCG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F09650- 02-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC), to repair the compressed air system and to construct a building addition to house the compressor plant at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. A-1 contends that the agency's evaluation of its proposal as technically unacceptable was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose technically acceptable proposal represented the best value to the government, considering past performance and price. The requirements were divided among three contract line items (CLIN). CLIN 0001, to repair the compressed air system in Building 83; CLIN 0002, to construct the addition in Building 83; and CLIN 0003, to dispose of contaminated soil. Included with the RFP, as amended, were a number of drawings which depicted the work to be performed under the contract, and the successful offeror was to perform the project in accordance with the statement of