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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-417639.2,B-417639.3 1 (2019-09-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadzwy0001 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 The decision issued on the date below was subject to Decision a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: AECOM Management Services, Inc. File: B-417639.2; B-417639.3 Date: September 16, 2019 Richard B. O'Keeffe, Jr., Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Gary S. Ward, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Christine R. Couvillon, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Edward W. Gray, Jr., Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for DynCorp International, LLC, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Kelly Sledgister-Stehle, Esq., and Matthew A. McNease, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's evaluation of protester's and awardee's proposals under the technical evaluation factor was reasonable, including the agency's assessment of strengths in awardee's proposal that ultimately were relied on as discriminators in the source selection decision. 2. Agency's evaluation of protester's and awardee's proposals under the past performance evaluation factor was reasonable, including the determination that awardee's prior performance was more relevant to this procurement than the protester's prior performance. 3. Protest challenging the agency's best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency documented multiple discriminators justifying the awardee's higher price and where the underlying evaluation was reasonable.