Hasen Global, LLC (W9126G25R0130)

B-424168 Mar 25, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Pat Williams Construction, LLC (PWC), located in Leeville, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Cerris Builders, Inc. (CBI), of Overland Park, Kansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G25R0130, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for sustainment, restoration, and modernization building services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award, for failing to include required information. The protester also argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff analysis were unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Pat Williams Construction, LLC File: B-424168 Date: March 25, 2026 Jason Williams for the protester. Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq., Gordon Rees Scully & Mansukhani, LLP, for Cerris Builders, Inc., the intervenor. Deborah L. Collins, Esq., and Elliott A. Stanley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably rated protester's proposal as unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award, is denied, where the protester failed to submit information addressing material solicitation requirements. DECISION Pat Williams Construction, LLC (PWC), located in Leeville, Louisiana, protests the award of a contract to Cerris Builders, Inc. (CBI), of Overland Park, Kansas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G25R0130, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for sustainment, restoration, and modernization building services. The protester alleges that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award, for failing to include required information. The protester also argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff analysis were unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2025, the agency issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking to award a design‑bid‑build, fixed‑price contract to renovate and repair a tactical equipment maintenance facility building in Fort Polk, Louisiana.[1] RFP at 1, 15-16, 18; RFP amend. 4 at 4. The solicitation contemplated that the contract work would be completed no later than 540 days after issuance of the notice to proceed (NTP). RFP at 114. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors, with the first three factors (the non-price factors) listed in descending order of importance: (1) past performance; (2) summary schedule; (3) small business participation; and (4) price. RFP amend. 4 at 4-5. When combined, all non-price evaluation factors were approximately equal to price. Id. at 5. The solicitation advised further that the government intended to award the contract without discussions and that the “[g]overnment will not award a contract to an [o]fferor whose proposal contains a deficiency.”[2] RFP at 15; RFP amend. 4 at 5, 13. The agency received proposals from six offerors, including PWC and CBI.[3] AR, Tab 10, SSDD at 5.[4] As relevant here, in evaluating PWC's proposal, the agency determined that the proposal was unacceptable under the summary schedule factor based on four deficiencies, one weakness, and two uncertainties in the proposal. AR, Tab 10, SSDD at 7‑8. In this regard, the agency found that PWC's proposed summary schedule failed to meet several of the solicitation's requirements.[5] Specifically, the SSEB identified four deficiencies because PWC's proposed schedule: (1) did not include total float calculations; (2) failed to detail activities tied to acquiring and delivering items with long lead times; (3) omitted required ordering dates for critical items with long lead times; and (4) did not describe the activities required to turnover the project to the Corps when complete. Id. at 8-9. Based on these deficiencies, the SSEB concluded that the risk of unsuccessful performance was “unacceptably high” and assigned PWC's proposal a rating of unacceptable.[6] Id. at 8. Because PWC's proposal received a rating of unacceptable, it was not included in the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis. COS at 9. The source selection authority reviewed the SSEB's evaluation findings, conducted a best-value tradeoff analysis of the four proposals remaining in the competition, and selected CBI's as the best value to the government. Id. at 7; see also AR, Tab 15, Post-Award Debriefing at 5. The contracting officer notified PWC of the award to CBI on December 8, 2025, and PWC requested a debriefing.