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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-405664.3 1 (2012-05-17)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadpkc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A O Comptroller General Accountabiliy , Integri I Reiiabihtty of the United States United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been Decision L approved for public releas e. Matter of: Department of the Navy--Reconsideration File: B-405664.3 Date: May 17, 2012 Gina Gascoigne, Esq., William T. Mohn, Esq., Andrew J. McCabe, Esq., and Kimberly L. Foltz, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command, for the agency. Rand L. Allen, Esq., Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Thomas J. Warren, Esq., William M. Novak, Esq., and Benjamin J. Kohr, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc.; Gerald F. Doyle, Esq., and Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle and Bachman, LLP, for L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC, intervenors. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's request to reconsider our decision sustaining a protest is denied where agency's request either reiterates arguments made previously and merely expresses disagreement with the prior decision, or advances new arguments that could have been, but were not, advanced during the initial protest. DECISION The Department of the Navy requests reconsideration of our decision BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc., B-405664; B-405664.2, Dec. 12, 2011, 2013 CPD T __, in which we sustained BAE's protest against the award of a contract to L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0001 9-1 0-R-0069, issued by the Department of the Navy for contractor logistics support services of certain trainer aircraft at multiple locations. The Navy contends that our earlier decision contains errors of law that warrant reversal of that decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. In our initial decision, we found that the agency misevaluated both BAE's and L-3's proposals. With respect to BAE's proposal, we concluded that the agency