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



B-401114 1 (2009-05-27)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadawf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


   iL

          G     A   O                                                  Comptroller General
f~..!   Accountabiity * Integrity * Reliability                         of the United States
  United States Government Accountability Office
  Washington, DC 20548

              D   ..
          Decision


          Matter  of:  America's Pride

          File:        B-401114

          Date:        May 27, 2009

          Philip J. Saulnier for the protester.
          Ronald A. Hickerson, for K&R Consulting, Inc., the intervenor.
          Barton B. Evans, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
          Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph 0. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO,  participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's proposal is denied where
          evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme.
          DECISION

          America's Pride (AP), of Dunn Loring, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to
          K&R  Consulting, Inc., of Woodstock, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
          VA-256-08-RP-0161 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical
          transcription services. The protester, the incumbent contractor providing these
          services, argues that the agency improperly evaluated K&R's proposal and thus made
          a flawed award decision.

          We  deny the protest.

          On  April 29, 2008, the agency issued this solicitation as a total service-disabled
          veteran-owned  small business set-aside (SDVOSB), seeking medical transcription
          services at various VA facilities. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-


          ' The protester was not represented by counsel and, therefore, did not have access to
          nonpublic information pursuant to the terms of a protective order. Accordingly, our
          discussion in this decision is necessarily general in nature to avoid reference to
          nonpublic information. Our conclusions, however, are based on our review of the
          entire record, including nonpublic information.