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



B-297536 1 (2006-01-30)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptasmz0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




A         G    A    O                                                  Comptroller General
.       Accountability * Integrity * Reliability                       of the United States
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548



          Decision


          Matter of: American Material Handling, Inc.

          File:        B-297536

          Date:        January 30, 2006

          A. Sid Goss for the protester.
          Vera Meza, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
          Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
          Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          In a negotiated procurement which provided for award on the basis of a
          price/technical tradeoff, protest challenging the selection of the higher-priced
          proposal is denied, where, consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors, the
          source selection authority found the awardee's offer of a shorter delivery schedule to
          outweigh the protester's price advantage.
          DECISION

          American Material Handling, Inc. (AMH) protests the award of a contract to JLG
          Industries under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D134, issued by the
          U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) for forklifts to be
          delivered to Iraq. AMH argues that its lower-priced proposal should have been
          selected for award.'

          We deny the protest.

          The RFP provided for the award of a 2-year, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery,
          indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the purchase and delivery of tactical, variable
          reach, all-wheel drive, rough terrain forklifts to Iraq. RFP attach. 001, Specification.

          1 The protester was not represented by counsel who could be admitted to a
          protective order and, therefore, the protester did not have access to
          source-selection-sensitive and proprietary information. Accordingly, our discussion
          in this decision is necessarily general. Our conclusions, however, are based on our
          review of the entire record.