T. J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc., B-294425, September 14, 2004

B-294425 Sep 14, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights T.J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc. (TJL) protests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers award of a contract to Dyer Construction Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912P6-04-R-0001, for flood control on Deer Creek, Ford Heights, Illinois. TJL challenges the evaluation, and resulting rejection, of its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294425, T. J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc., September 14, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Matter of: T. J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc. File: B-294425 Date: September 14, 2004 Kenneth A. Carlson, Esq., and Melanie D. Manning, Esq., Tracy, Johnson & Wilson, for the protester. Patrick A. Mysliwy, Esq., Maish & Mysliwy, an intervenor. Sanford A. Solomon, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protesters allegation that agency misevaluated its proposal is denied where record shows agencys determination that protesters proposal was unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with evaluation factors. DECISION T.J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc. (TJL) protests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers award of a contract to Dyer Construction Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912P6-04-R-0001, for flood control on Deer Creek, Ford Heights, Illinois. TJL challenges the evaluation, and resulting rejection, of its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on May 10, 2004, provided for award of a fixed-price contract to widen the channel along Deer Creek, excavate two shallow reservoirs, and build a concrete spillway and various culverts and headwalls. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. The RFP provided that, in order for a proposal to be considered technically acceptable, it had to receive a go rating under each of eight evaluation factors, which covered areas such as past performance, ability to excavate material, ability to haul material, experience working below water level, and experience building cast-in-concrete structures. The solicitation specifically required that the information presented in the proposal provide more than superficial coverage of the areas to be addressed in the technical proposal. RFP at 20. Six firms submitted proposals. TJLs proposal was the lowest-priced, but the technical evaluation panel determined that it was unacceptable under three evaluation areas. The agency therefore made award to Dyer, whose technically acceptable proposal was next lowest in price. TJL maintains that the agency unreasonably determined that its offer failed to meet the RFP requirements. In reviewing an agencys evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposals; we will only consider whether the agencys evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Applied Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. , B-291191, Nov.15, 2002, 2002 CPD 202 at 2. The agency reasonably rejected TJLs proposal as unacceptable. One of the factors for which TJLs proposal received a no go rating was experience building castinplace concrete structures, under which offerors were to provide documentation of at least two projects, with no time frame limits, that demonstrate experience building cast-in-place concrete structures. RFP at 21. In response to this requirement, TJLs proposal stated only that [TJL] does not self perform the actual cast in place concrete. However, TJL does perform the excavation and backfill for the subcontractor for this work. TJL Proposal, Vol.1,3.7. The proposal made no mention of projects--performed by TJL or a subcontractor--involving castin-place concrete structures, and did not include any other information--such as the name of the subcontractor with which it previously had performed--that might give the agency further guidance in evaluating the protesters experience in this area. Given TJLs manifest failure to present the required information establishing that it possessed the required experience, the agencys no go rating was reasonable. [1] TJL also challenges the reasonableness of the other two no go findings--under the areas of experience in cold weather conditions, and the ability to haul 2,000 cubic yards of material per day. However, these arguments are academic, and we thus need not address them, since TJLs proposal properly was rejected based on the finding that it was unacceptable under the cast-in-place concrete structures experience area.