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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-414829.2,B-414829.3 1 (2019-02-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadvoj0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Decision The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Apogee Engineering, LLC File: B-414829.2; B-414829.3 Date: February 21, 2019 Peter B. Ford, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Emily J. Rouleau, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Laura Wainwright, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the awardee's non-price proposal is denied where the record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation; however, allegation that the agency's price realism analysis was unreasonable is sustained where the record does not show that the agency considered the awardee's lower pricing in the context of the firm's technical approach. 2. Protest challenging the agency's selection decision is sustained where the record shows that the source selection authority found the proposals technically equal by simply comparing adjectival ratings without qualitatively assessing the underlying merits of the technical proposals. DECISION Apogee Engineering, LLC, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Countermeasures Assessment and Security Experts (CASE), LLC, of New Castle, Delaware, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS5916R00023, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), for support services. Apogee, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal under the technical and past performance factors, failed to perform a reasonable price realism analysis, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.