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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-404913.3 1 (2011-10-06)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadpbq0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A G A 0 Comptroller General ,mAccountability * 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. D e c i s i o n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matter of: Ahtna Facility Services, Inc.-Reconsideration File: B-404913.3 Date: October 6, 2011 Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. Department of the Army, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest is denied where, contrary to protester's claims, the decision considered all of protester's arguments in resolving the protest, but only discussed the primary arguments, and where the decision did not contain errors of fact or law that warranted its reversal or modification. DECISION Ahtna Facility Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Ahtna Facility Servs., Inc. , B-404913, B-404913.2, June 30, 2011, 2011 CPD 134, in which we denied Ahtna's protest of its exclusion from the competitive range by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-1 1-R-0005 for healthcare environmental services for the San Antonio Military Medical Center- North (SAMMC-N) and other medical facilities at or around Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Ahtna complains that we did not address the unequal treatment of offerors and improper ranking of proposals arguments raised in its supplemental protest, and various other arguments it made challenging the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation. Ahtna also argues that our decision made errors of law and fact concerning its ground of protest about addressing seven types of services, and misread the RFP requirements concerning performance metrics. We deny the reconsideration request. On December 8, 2010, the agency published the RFP, seeking proposals to provide healthcare environmental services for SAMMC-N and other nearby medical facilities. The RFP provided that the agency would use the Lowest Price, Technically