The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPORKIN
This is a disappointed bidder's case. Plaintiff Dynalectron lost out to RCA in its pursuit of a United States Navy contract to operate and manage the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility ("PMRF") in Kauai, Hawaii. Plaintiff brought this action to contest the award of the contract to RCA, alleging irregularities in the contracting process.
The case is before me on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Because of the importance of the case to the parties, I held extensive hearings on February 13, 18, 19, and 20, 1987, during which live testimony Was elicited from four witnesses and several depositions were read into the record. Additionally, the parties presented extensive arguments at the conclusion of the testimony. The following represent my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
1. On August 16, 1985, the Naval Regional Contracting Center, Long Beach ("NRCC"), issued a solicitation (Tab 1A of the Administrative Record) for operations, public works, maintenance logistics and other services at PMRF, for a period of one year with four one-year option periods. The services are currently under contract to Dynalectron, which has operated the facility for the past fifteen years. The current contract expired on September 30, 1986, but has been extended twice, because of delays in the procurement process, until March 1, 1987.
2. The Contracting Officer for the solicitation was Ms. Gayle Walker. Because no other official was designated a "source selection authority," Ms. Walker had the responsibility to select the source for contract award. See 48 CFR 15.604(c).
3. The solicitation was for award of a cost-reimbursement award fee contract. Tab 1.
4. Section M of the solicitation informed offerors that award would be made to "that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered." Tab 1A at 42. That determination was to be made through utilization of a numerical scoring process, in which technical and management factors were accorded 75 % of the total weight and cost factors were accorded 25%. Tab 2 at 17.
5. Initial proposals were received on January 6, 1986 from four bidders. The proposals were evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Board at PMRF. Finding all of the offers within the competitive range, the Board ranked them numerically and reported deficiencies to the Contracting Officer. Tabs 5 and 8. A simultaneous cost analysis by the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA") found both Dynalectron's and RCA's proposals acceptable for cost purposes. Tab 9C and 9D.
7. Best and Final Offers ("BAFO's") were submitted by all the offerors on July 18, 1986. Id., Finding 19.
8. The estimated costs of the proposals in question in their BAFO's were:
Dynalectron (primary) $ 137,250,932
Dynalectron (alternate) 121,016,841
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...