File Not Found

B-424049.4 Jun 23, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc., a small business of Atlanta, Georgia, requests that our Office recommend that the firm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the contract award to Radise International L.C., of Barranquitas, Puerto Rico. The contract award was made under request for proposals (RFP) No. W51DQV-25-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for quality assurance services. Accura challenged the agency's evaluation of proposals and its best-value tradeoff determination. Accura also contended that the agency evaluated the offerors disparately. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc.--Costs File: B-424049.4 Date: June 23, 2026 Evan C. Williams, Esq., Diana Lyn Curtis Shutzer, Esq., and Nicholas Feldstern, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, for the requester. Timothy A. Holliday, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that GAO recommend reimbursement of the protest costs of challenging agency's technical evaluation is denied where the challenges were not clearly meritorious and are readily severable from the protester's clearly meritorious challenges to the agency's price evaluation and best‑value tradeoff decision. DECISION Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc., a small business of Atlanta, Georgia, requests that our Office recommend that the firm be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the contract award to Radise International L.C., of Barranquitas, Puerto Rico. The contract award was made under request for proposals (RFP) No. W51DQV-25-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for quality assurance services. Accura challenged the agency's evaluation of proposals and its best-value tradeoff determination. Accura also contended that the agency evaluated the offerors disparately. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on November 7, 2024, as a small business set-aside, seeking quality assurance services needed to monitor and oversee construction contractors building civil works facilities, military facilities, and interagency and international service facilities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Agency Report (AR), Tab B, RFP at 8. The RFP provided for award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, on a best-value tradeoff basis, for a base year and four 1-year option periods. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1; RFP at 64. The solicitation advised that proposals would be evaluated based on the following three factors: (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price. RFP at 64. The RFP provided that the technical approach factor was more important than past performance, and the non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id. The agency was to evaluate price for compliance, reasonableness, errors, and unbalanced pricing. Id. at 68. The RFP's price proposal instructions requested that offerors submit two separate price subsections: one for a seed task order, and another one with proposed labor rates for required job categories for the base year and proposed escalation rates to the labor rates for the four option periods. Id. at 61; COS at 7. As relevant here, the RFP provided that with respect to the seed task order, the agency would analyze whether “prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the efforts described in the offeror's technical proposal for the [seed] [t]ask [o]rder.” RFP at 69. The agency was also to “evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.” Id. (incorporating by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.212-2 Addendum (b)). The agency received eight proposals, including those submitted by Accura and Radise, by the January 6, 2025, deadline for submission. COS at 3.