B-222432.3, SEP 25, 1986, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-222432.3: Sep 25, 1986

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

OKLAHOMA TO THAT SITE IF THE AWARD IS NOT DISTURBED. THE FAA EVALUATION WAS BOTH PROPER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED EVALUATION CRITERIA. THAT ONE EXCEPTION WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO DISTURB THE RELATIVE RANKING OF THE PROPOSALS. WE HELD THAT THE SELECTION OFFICIAL'S CONSIDERATION OF COST AND PRICE IN THE SELECTION WAS WITHIN HIS REASONABLE RANGE OF DISCRETION. WE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE FAA CONDUCTED ADEQUATE DISCUSSIONS AND THAT FINLEY'S PROTEST OF CERTAIN SELECTION CRITERIA WAS UNTIMELY. FINLEY'S ARGUMENTS WERE EITHER REITERATIONS OF ITS PRIOR CONTENTIONS OR ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED FROM THE PRIOR MATERIALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PROTEST.

B-222432.3, SEP 25, 1986, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

THE HONORABLE JAMES R. JONES:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 29, 1986 URGED RECONSIDERATION OF IRA T. FINLEY INVESTMENTS' PROTEST OF AWARD TO EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY. OUR DECISION OF JULY 25, 1986 UPHELD THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S SELECTION OF EMBRY-RIDDLE TO PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT TRAINING SCHOOL. AS YOU KNOW, EMBRY-RIDDLE PROPOSED A SITE IN FLORIDA FOR THE FACILITY, AND THE FAA PLANS TO MOVE THE SCHOOL FROM ITS PRESENT SITE IN LAWTON, OKLAHOMA TO THAT SITE IF THE AWARD IS NOT DISTURBED.

IN ITS PROTEST, FINLEY CHALLENGED THE FAA'S EVALUATION OF BOTH ITS OWN PROPOSAL AND EMBRY-RIDDLE'S, ASSERTING A WIDE RANGE OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN BOTH THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE EVALUATION AND THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE EVALUATORS. WE HELD THAT, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THE FAA EVALUATION WAS BOTH PROPER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND THAT ONE EXCEPTION WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO DISTURB THE RELATIVE RANKING OF THE PROPOSALS. WE HELD THAT THE SELECTION OFFICIAL'S CONSIDERATION OF COST AND PRICE IN THE SELECTION WAS WITHIN HIS REASONABLE RANGE OF DISCRETION, GIVEN THE STATED COST AND PRICE CRITERIA. WE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE FAA CONDUCTED ADEQUATE DISCUSSIONS AND THAT FINLEY'S PROTEST OF CERTAIN SELECTION CRITERIA WAS UNTIMELY.

WE ISSUED OUR SECOND DECISION ON THE MATTER ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1986 BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF YOUR AUGUST 29 LETTER. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE DENIED FINLEY'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. FINLEY'S ARGUMENTS WERE EITHER REITERATIONS OF ITS PRIOR CONTENTIONS OR ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED FROM THE PRIOR MATERIALS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PROTEST.

WE ENCLOSE COPIES OF BOTH OUR DECISIONS ON THIS MATTER.