QA Engineering, LLC (W912PP25R0006)

B-423716,B-423716.2 Sep 30, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights QA Engineering, LLC, a small business of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Koman Advantage, LLC, of Chandler, Arizona, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W912PP25R0006 issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the construction of a small arms storage facility. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating proposals in numerous respects. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: QA Engineering, LLC File: B-423716; B-423716.2 Date: September 30, 2025 Jon W. Burd, Esq., and Vaibhavi Patria, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Maureen E. Rudolph, Esq., Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., Trevor Stevens, Esq., Joseph Turner, Esq., and Randall C. Merchant, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement law. 2. Protester cannot establish competitive prejudice concerning other aspects of the agency's evaluation where the protester's proposal was technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award, and there was at least one other technically acceptable proposal that would be next in line for award even if our Office were to sustain the protester's other protest grounds. DECISION QA Engineering, LLC, a small business of Albuquerque, New Mexico, protests the award of a contract to Koman Advantage, LLC, of Chandler, Arizona, under request for proposal (RFP) No. W912PP25R0006 issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the construction of a small arms storage facility. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating proposals in numerous respects. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on January 22, 2025, seeking construction of a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) and associated site work for storage of small arms at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 5, 137. The RFP contemplated that the awardee would fabricate the metal components of the proposed building off-site and then transport those components to the construction site and assemble them, along with other related site-work. See, e.g., Id. at 566-567. The RFP established that award would be made on a lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, with three technical factors: (1) past performance; (2) management approach; and (3) key personnel. Id. at 27-28. The solicitation was clear that offerors must receive a rating of acceptable on all three technical factors to receive an overall acceptable rating and to be eligible for award. Id. Relevant here, concerning the management approach factor, the solicitation directed offerors, among other things, to describe their “approach to providing and maintaining an effective Quality Control program for this project to meet contract requirements for onsite construction activities and offsite fabrication.” RFP at 36. The RFP also directed offerors to discuss “the roles and responsibilities of proposed subcontractors for this project.” Id. Finally, the RFP cautioned that offerors are responsible for including “sufficient details to permit complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.” Id. The agency received nine proposals, including proposals from the protester and awardee. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The agency concluded that the protester's proposal was technically unacceptable because the protester's management approach did not address the roles and responsibilities for proposed subcontractors and did not discuss quality control of the PEMB at the fabrication site. Id. at 5. However, the agency concluded that four other proposals were technically acceptable, including the awardee's proposal. Id. at 4. The agency made award to Koman, the LPTA offeror. Id. The agency notified the protester that it was not the successful offeror on June 10, 2025, and this protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester raises numerous arguments concerning the agency's evaluation of its own proposal and the awardee's proposal.[1] As discussed in greater detail below, because we conclude that the agency did not err in finding the protester to be technically unacceptable on at least one basis, the protester is ineligible for award.