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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-418012.6,B-418012.7 1 (2021-01-05)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaecgf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 1Oo U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE A Century of Non-Partisan Fact-Based Work 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: Ahtna-RDI JV, Inc. File: B-418012.6; B-418012.7 Date: January 5, 2021 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., and Miles McCann, Esq., Ward & Berry PLLC, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for IT Objects, LLC, the intervenor. James Rhodes, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly determined protester's proposal ineligible for award because it failed to comply with solicitation requirements is denied where the record shows that the protester did not submit a complete price schedule that included overtime rates as required by the solicitation. DECISION Ahtna RDI, JV, LLC (ARJV), a small business located in Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to IT Objects, LLC (ITO), a small business concern located in Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1305M319RNFFS0008, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for information technology services including software development and systems administration, for the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The protester alleges that the agency improperly determined its proposal ineligible for award based on the protester's failure to include overtime rates in its price schedule. The protester also argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff analysis were unreasonable. We deny the protest.