Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. (W912EQ24RA001)

B-424169 Feb 25, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cornerstone Engineering, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, protests the award of contracts to other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EQ-24-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for miscellaneous civil works projects. Cornerstone argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly conducted the tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. File: B-424169 Date: February 25, 2026 Brandi Smith, for the protester. S. Leo Arnold, Esq., Arnold, Willis & Conway, for Donald Bond Construction Co., the intervenor. Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., John Holton, Esq., and Seth Rowland, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably conducted the tradeoff analysis is denied where the record shows that the source selection authority qualitatively compared the merits of the competing proposals. DECISION Cornerstone Engineering, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, protests the award of contracts to other firms under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912EQ-24-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for miscellaneous civil works projects. Cornerstone argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly conducted the tradeoff analysis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 9, 2024, contemplated the award of five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for design-build construction services to support the Corps's Memphis District. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP, amend. 5 at 169, 181.[1] The procurement was conducted in two phases. During phase one, the agency evaluated proposals under the past performance, construction execution approach, and organization/management team factors. RFP, amend. 5 at 5. Offerors evaluated as the most highly qualified under those factors would be selected to participate in phase two. Id. at 169. Cornerstone was among the offerors selected to advance. COS at 1. During phase two, offerors were instructed to submit technical and price proposals for a seed design-build project. RFP, amend. 5 at 169. The design-build project consisted of clearing, snagging, and cleaning out a straight slough channel, and had an estimated value between $5 and 10 million. Id. at 169, 321. In making awards, the RFP advised the following: Upon completion of the Phase Two evaluation the Contracting Officer will award a target of [five] contracts [. . . ] to the Offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government considering the Phase One evaluation ratings, the seed project(s) pricing, and the ratings of the Phase Two non-price evaluation factors. The seed project task order will be awarded to the offeror who is rated as the overall best value to the government out of the 5 awarded contracts, i.e. number one (1), highest-ranked offeror. Id. at 169. The phase two technical factors, listed in descending order of importance, included the following: proposed technical solutions, schedule, and key personnel. Id. at 170. Technical factors would be evaluated using combined technical risk ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Id. at 172. When conducting the tradeoff analysis, the RFP stated that the technical factors, when combined, were equal to the price factor. Id. at 170. Prior to the September 4, 2025, close of the phase two solicitation period, eight offerors, including Cornerstone, submitted proposals. AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 1. Cornerstone was evaluated as “acceptable” under the proposed technical solutions factor, “marginal” under the schedule factor; and “acceptable” under the key personnel factor. Id. at 3. Cornerstone's proposed price was the second highest of the eight offerors. Id. When conducting the tradeoff analysis, the source selection authority (SSA) determined that Cornerstone was not among the five highest-rated offerors, specifically slotting at seventh overall. Id. at 15. The SSA noted that Cornerstone's proposal was evaluated as having significant weaknesses and deficiencies under the schedule factor which, when compared with the other offerors, presented a higher risk of unsuccessful performance. Id. The SSA also noted that Cornerstone's proposed price, $22,012,869, was 265 percent higher than the internal government estimate (IGE). Id. On November 26, Cornerstone learned that its proposal was unsuccessful. On December 18, the agency provided Cornerstone with a written debriefing.