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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-286155.2 1 (2001-10-10)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptamlr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 Comptroller General SIntegrity Reliability of the United States ~ccountabthty Inert Rea iy United States General Accounting 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. Decision Matter of: 4-D Neuroimaging File: B-286155.2; B-286155.3 Date: October 10, 2001 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., and William V. Walsh, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. S. Gregg Kunzi, Esq., Howard M. Holstein, Esq., and Michael J. Vernick, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, for CTF Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Deirdre L. Stallworth, Esq., Frederick M. Quattrone, Esq., and Michael Trovarelli, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Technical evaluation identifying various features of awardee's proposal as advantages was unobjectionable where agency followed solicitation's evaluation criteria and record establishes that evaluated advantages have a reasonable basis. 2. Agency's waiver of testing requirement included in solicitation by mistake did not prejudice protester where cost of the testing is de minimis; reducing protester's price by cost of the testing would not have affected the price-technical tradeoff. 3. Agency was not required to conduct discussions regarding what protester characterizes as perceived weaknesses in its proposal where proposal was rated acceptable under all factors and weaknesses were simply areas where awardee's higher-rated proposal had relative technical advantages. 4. Price-technical tradeoff was reasonable where source selection official identified technical distinctions between competing proposals and specifically determined that higher technically rated proposal represented best value despite higher cost. DECISION 4-D Neuroimaging protests the award of a contract to the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), on behalf of CTF Systems, Inc., under request for proposals