Opinion ID: 595195
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: atacc

Text: 14 On April 30, 1987, SPAWAR issued the RFP on ATACC. The RFP stated that any proposals would be evaluated in four areas based on a weighted average. However, the RFP did not list the weights government evaluators would assign to each area. 15 Pafort was directly responsible for preparing Litton's proposal on ATACC. On July 28, 1987, Pafort spoke to Muldoon about the ATACC procurement and asked Muldoon for any information he could obtain concerning the procurement. Pafort advised Muldoon that Litton's strategy was to submit an initial bid that, while not meant to be the lowest bid, would be low enough to include Litton in the competitive range. 16 Ultimately, Muldoon provided McAusland with the evaluation weights that the government would use in judging bids on ATACC. Muldoon obtained this information from Mark Saunders (Saunders), another private consultant, who had received the information from George Stone (Stone), the SPAWAR official responsible for conducting the ATACC procurement. Muldoon paid Saunders for this information. 17 On August 17, 1987, McAusland informed Muldoon that Litton was ready to submit its ATACC proposal. They agreed that Muldoon should not attempt to obtain copies of all the competitor's technical proposals. McAusland stated that to do so would be playing with fire. The two agreed to wait until after the government had examined the initial proposals to determine whether Muldoon needed to obtain a particular competitor's proposal. 18 Muldoon told Pafort about McAusland's decision not to obtain copies of all the technical proposals. Muldoon stated that he would not obtain a competitor's proposal unless a proposal contained a design that Litton would want to steal. 19 On August 21, 1987, Pafort asked Muldoon how soon he would have the information about the competitors' bids. Later, McAusland told Muldoon that Muldoon could sell the information to another competitor if Litton did not have a chance of getting the contract. 20 On September 24, 1987, Saunders told Muldoon that he did not expect to obtain any information on ATACC in the near future. However, Saunders stated he might be able to learn where Litton stood in comparison with the other companies. Muldoon then told Pafort that he had asked his source to find out where Litton stood. Muldoon said that if he obtained this information, Pafort should come to Washington rather than discussing it on the telephone. Pafort agreed. 21 On September 29, Stone told Saunders what each competitor in the ATACC procurement had bid. Stone also told Saunders that Litton's bid had been the highest and was not in the competitive range. 22 Saunders then told Muldoon that Litton had submitted the highest bid and told Muldoon the price Stone had quoted as being Litton's. Saunders also told Muldoon that Litton would be eliminated before the next stage of the competition. 23 On October 1, 1987, Muldoon gave this information to McAusland. McAusland verified that Muldoon had accurately reported Litton's bid and agreed that Muldoon's other information was probably correct. Muldoon advised McAusland not to send a letter withdrawing Litton's bid because Litton was not supposed to know that it would be eliminated. McAusland agreed. 24 Between October and March, 1988, SPAWAR continued the evaluation process of the initial ATACC proposals. During this period, Pafort asked Muldoon for the latest information on ATACC. Pafort said he was interested because Litton had invested $1 million in its ATACC effort. In February, Pafort said he would like to see the ranking of the competitors, which Muldoon indicated he had obtained from his source. Muldoon had obtained them from Saunders who had, in turn, obtained them from Stone. 25 SPAWAR officials concluded their evaluation process in February, 1988. In March, 1988, they notified four companies that they were in the competitive range and would continue in the competition, while advising Litton and others that they were being eliminated. The contract was ultimately awarded to Grumman Systems for approximately $95 million.