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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-415819 1 (2018-03-22)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadunh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAOU.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Decision 1The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Matter of: A-B Computer Solutions, Inc. File: B-415819 Date: March 22, 2018 Nicholas T. Solosky, Esq., Erin F. Masini, Esq., and Kelsey O'Brien, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the protester. David Y. Yang, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for Advanced Global Resources, LLC, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., and Amanda A. Collins, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Alexander 0. Levine, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester is not an interested party to challenge agency's evaluation of awardee's technical approach and past performance where protester would not be in line for award if its protest were to be sustained. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal does not comply with a definitive responsibility criterion requiring personnel security clearances at a secret level is denied, where the solicitation does not require the awardee to have such clearances prior to award of the contract. 3. GAO will not review challenge to contracting officer's affirmative responsibility determination where the record fails to show that contracting officer ignored information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. DECISION A-B Computer Solutions, Inc., a small business located in Mandeville, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Advanced Global Resources (AGR), LLC, a small business located in Dallas, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-16- R-0267, issued by the Department of the Army for information technology support services for the Red River Army Depot. The protester, the incumbent contractor, asserts that the contracting officer improperly determined AGR to be a responsible