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



B-400325.3 1 (2009-02-19)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadatl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




         G     A     0                                                 Comptroller General
       Accountability * Integrity * Reliability                         of the United States
United States Government Accountability 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:  Arc-Tech, Inc.

          File:        B-400325.3

          Date:        February 19, 2009

          Andrew  P. Hallowell, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for the protester.
          Richard G. Bergeron, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the
          agency.
          Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
          General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Agency may  not exclude from the competitive range a proposal that has not been
          determined technically unacceptable without taking into account the proposal's
          price.
          DECISION

          Arc-Tech, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
          competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-2008-P(GG)-0238,
          issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for custodial
          services at National Institutes of Health buildings located in Bethesda, Rockville, and
          Poolesville, Maryland. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its
          proposal was unreasonable and that the agency improperly failed to consider price
          in its competitive range determination.

          We sustain the protest.

          The RFP, which was set aside for competition among 8(a) firms,' contemplated the
          award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base and
          4 option years. The procurement was conducted using the procedures under Federal
          Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 for the acquisition of commercial items. The


          'The solicitation advised offerors that pursuant to a partnership agreement between
          the Small Business Administration (SBA) and HHS, SBA had delegated to HHS the
          authority to enter into 8(a) contracts directly with eligible 8(a) firms.