The Army requested reconsideration of a recommendation in an earlier GAO decision. In that decision, GAO found that the Army's evaluation of the proposals submitted in response to a solicitation for word processing equipment was inconsistent with the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation. GAO recommended that the remaining portion of the procurement be resolicited based on the Army's actual needs and be evaluated on an objective basis that would insure equality of treatment. This recommendation was based on the understanding that the awarded contract was a 1-year lease with three 1-year options. In requesting reconsideration, the Army agreed with the GAO findings in regard to the inconsistency between its evaluation and the evaluation criteria in the solicitation. However, the Army informed GAO that the equipment was purchased, not leased. Thus, the Army maintains that no meaningful corrective action is possible. GAO has held that the extent of performance is a proper consideration in determining whether corrective action should be taken for an improper award. GAO agreed with the Army and, therefore, no corrective action on the award was recommended. The prior decision was modified accordingly.
Skip to Highlights