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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-406170.2,B-406170.3,B-406170.4 1 (2013-06-13)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadpoy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A O Comptroller General Acc ; tabty * Infegrilty Reliabikty 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 L .-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . .. Matter of: Beechcraft Defense Company, LLC File: B-406170.2; B-406170.3; B-406170.4 Date: June 13, 2013 James J. McCullough, Esq., Jerald S. Howe, Jr., Esq., Joseph J. LoBue, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Aaron T. Tucker, Esq., and Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; and Deneen J. Melander, Esq., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, for the protester. Charles R. Lucy, Esq., Victoria L. Strohmeyer, Esq., Todd W. Miller, Esq., Lauren Caplan, Esq., Janna J. Lewis, Esq., and William W. Maywhort, Esq., Holland & Hart LLP, for Sierra Nevada Corporation, Inc., the intervenor. Lt. Col. Paul E. Cronin, and Behn M. Kelly, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency applied more stringent requirements and unstated criteria to the evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the record reflects that the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal by relaxing or waiving solicitation requirements is denied where the record reflects that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal was consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest that agency engaged in unequal treatment regarding the evaluation of certain technical areas is denied where the offerors' proposals did not present similar approaches or data in the challenged evaluation areas. 4. Agency's selection of a lower-risk, higher-priced proposal for award instead of a higher-risk, lower-priced proposal is unobjectionable, where the agency's tradeoff