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



B-291567 1 (2002-12-31)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaoji0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




          G    A     0                                                Comptroller General
Accountability * Integrity* Reliability                                of the United States
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548



          Decision


          Matter of: AST Environmental, Inc.

          File:        B-291567

          Date:        December 31, 2002

          Richard A. Ciambrone, Esq., Thompson Hine, for the protester.
          Mark R. Weidner for Water Quality Systems, Inc., the intervenor.
          John D. Inazu, Esq., and Carol A. Satterfield, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for
          the agency.
          Peter Verchinski and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Protest that agency failed to perform an adequate price realism analysis is denied
          where agency's price analysis was reasonable and legally sufficient.
          DECISION

          AST Environmental, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Water Quality Systems,
          Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) F33601-02-R-9035, issued by the Department
          of the Air Force for all labor, material, and equipment necessary to clean and
          monitor oil separators and settling basins at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
          Contending that Air Force's price realism analysis was inadequate, AST asserts that
          Water Quality's proposal should have been rejected because its proposed price was
          unrealistically low.

          We deny the protest.

          The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a base period and
          4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated for technical acceptability, and then,
          among technically acceptable proposals, award was to be made on a best value
          basis, with a tradeoff permitted between past performance and evaluated price. The
          RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the proposed prices for realism and
          reasonableness, and that the agency might reject proposals where the prices were
          unreasonably high or so low as to indicate a lack of understanding of the work to be
          performed.