Intelligence Programs

Technology Research International, Inc. (TRI), a small disadvantaged business, alleged improper conduct by an Air Force prime contractor in awarding a subcontract to a TRI competitor. GAO found no evidence that the prime contractor--Lockheed Sanders, Inc.--engaged in any misconduct in using the source selection process questioned by TRI. TRI did not submit the lowest bid and was given the same chance as competitors to update its proposal in response to amendments to the proposal request. In addition, weighting factors were consistently applied to each competitor's bid proposal. GAO found that the Air Force played no role in the source selection process for this subcontract. Finally, the prime contractor was not required to and did not use an evaluation preference for small disadvantaged businesses. It was required, however, to have a small business/small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan as part of the prime contract. GAO found that such a plan was developed and incorporated into the prime contract.

GAO found that: (1) contrary to its assertions, the SDB was not the low bidder; (2) the awardee increased its bid by more than 25 percent, but remained the low bidder; (3) the prime contractor consistently applied the prioritization and weighted factors specified in the solicitation; (4) there was no evidence that the Air Force or the prime contractor earmarked the subcontract for the awardee; (5) the prime contractor was not required to apply a SDB preference during its bid evaluation, and there would have been no significant change in the firms' ranking if the preference had been applied; (6) the prime contractor did not provide the SDB with some of the information it requested about the procurement because the procurement was classified; and (7) the SDB could accept the prime contractor's offer to provide a debriefing conference to obtain information that may assist it in improving its competitiveness in the future.