B-181738(2), JAN 15, 1975

B-181738(2): Jan 15, 1975

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY. (LEC) IS PREMISED IN PART ON A "SIGNIFICANT" LEC MARGIN IN MISSION SUITABILITY. OUR CONCLUSION NOTES IN THIS REGARD THAT A WIDER COST DIFFERENTIAL WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A DECISIVE EFFECT ON THE SELECTION DECISION DUE TO THE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY WHICH EXISTS IN ESTIMATING FOR COST-TYPE CONTRACTS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT IT IS FOR THE SSO TO DETERMINE. WHETHER A REEVALUATION OF COSTS IS CALLED FOR. OR WHETHER OUR DOUBTS RELATING TO THE EVALUATION OF THE CRITERION WHICH WAS SECOND IN IMPORTANCE ARE NOT. WE BELIEVE THAT IN THE EVENT THE SSO DETERMINES THAT A COST REEVALUATION IS CALLED FOR. WE WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ADVISED OF WHATEVER ACTION IS TAKEN IN THIS REGARD.

B-181738(2), JAN 15, 1975

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MR. JAMES C. FLETCHER:

WE REFER TO A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 16, 1974, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, FROM THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROCUREMENT, CONCERNING THE PROTEST OF DYNALECTRON CORPORATION UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 9-WSRE-3-3-1P.

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY. WE WISH TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT PORTION OF THE DECISION CONCERNING OUR CONCLUSION REACHED IN THIS CASE. AS INDICATED, WE FOUND NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE MISSION SUITABILITY EVALUATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE SOURCE SELECTION OFFICIAL'S (SSO) SELECTION OF LOCKHEED ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC. (LEC) IS PREMISED IN PART ON A "SIGNIFICANT" LEC MARGIN IN MISSION SUITABILITY, AND THAT THE SELECTION DECISION REFERS TO THE "REASONABLE COST" OF THE LEC PROPOSAL, AND TO THE LACK OF A "SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE", AND TO THE "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR" PROBABLE COST OF ALL OF THE OFFERORS. SECTION IV OF THE DECISION DISCUSSES OUR DOUBTS REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROBABLE COST EVALUATION, AND OUR VIEW THAT A COST REEVALUATION MIGHT REVEAL AN INCREASE IN THE PROBABLE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN DYNALECTRON AND LEC. OUR CONCLUSION NOTES IN THIS REGARD THAT A WIDER COST DIFFERENTIAL WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A DECISIVE EFFECT ON THE SELECTION DECISION DUE TO THE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY WHICH EXISTS IN ESTIMATING FOR COST-TYPE CONTRACTS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.

UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT IT IS FOR THE SSO TO DETERMINE, IN LIGHT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN OUR DECISION, WHETHER A REEVALUATION OF COSTS IS CALLED FOR, OR WHETHER OUR DOUBTS RELATING TO THE EVALUATION OF THE CRITERION WHICH WAS SECOND IN IMPORTANCE ARE NOT, IN THE SSO'S JUDGMENT, OF SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS IMPACT TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF HIS SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. WE BELIEVE THAT IN THE EVENT THE SSO DETERMINES THAT A COST REEVALUATION IS CALLED FOR, IT WOULD THEN BE FOR HIM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESULTS OF THE REEVALUATION MANDATE A RECONSIDERATION OF HIS SELECTION DECISION.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ADVISED OF WHATEVER ACTION IS TAKEN IN THIS REGARD.

Sep 27, 2016

Sep 22, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 20, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here