Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Sauer, Incorporated 

File: B-400709 

Date: December 22, 2008 

Kent P. Smith, Esq., Smith Currie & Hancock LLP, for the protester. 

Peter N. Ralston, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker Baker LLP, for Oregon Iron Works, Inc., 

an intervenor. 

Kevin M. Finley, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. 

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated proposal as technically 

unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable 

and consistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

Sauer, Incorporated of Jacksonville, Florida protests the award of a contract to 

Oregon Iron Works, Inc. of Clackamas, Oregon under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. W912QR-08-R-0072, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction 

of Markland Lock and Dam miter gates. Sauer challenges the agency’s evaluation of 

its proposal. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP was issued on July 29, 2008 for the fabrication and delivery of two miter 

gates for the 1200 foot chamber at the Markland Lock. The RFP anticipated the 

award of a fixed-price contract to the lowest-price technically acceptable offeror. 

The RFP stated that the agency would use a “go/no go” evaluation system and would 

evaluate proposals using four evaluation factors: technical approach, experience, 

past performance and price. The experience evaluation factor was comprised of five 

subfactors: prime contractor experience, welding experience, weld testing 

experience, large structure handling experience and individual personnel 

experience. Additionally, there were two subfactors under the past performance 

evaluation factor: past performance and utilization of small business. RFP § 4. 
The RFP advised offerors to include information sufficiently detailed to clearly

describe the offeror’s capabilities to successfully complete the project. As relevant 

here, with respect to the welding experience requirement, the RFP required offerors 

to provide descriptions of up to three similar projects that included fabrication of 

large welded structures substantially completed or completed within the last 5 years 

for the prime contractor or subcontractor to be used on the current project. 

RFP § 5.2.1.B. The RFP also required offerors to provide “documentation showing 

AWS [American Welding Society] certification for this type of work.” Id. The RFP 

had a similar requirement for the weld testing experience evaluation factor. 

For the welding experience and the weld testing requirements, the RFP set forth 

identical requirements. Specifically, the RFP advised that “documentation of 

completion of projects similar in scope and size to the current requirement and AWS 

certification for similar work will be considered to have met the minimum 

requirements of the RFP and will receive a “Go” rating.” RFP § 5.2.2.B and C, 

(emphasis added). Offerors were warned that proposals that did not include 

substantial evidence that the offeror has experience, qualifications and production 

capability to successfully perform the work would be considered to not satisfy the 

minimum requirements of the RFP. Id.

Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. After the initial evaluation by 

the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), all four proposals received an overall 

rating of “No Go,” primarily because of the offerors’ failure to satisfy the RFP 

experience requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab E, Source Selection Report, at 3. 

The proposed prices were evaluated as fair and reasonable based on a comparison to 

the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and market prices. After the SSEB 

noticed that all four offerors also failed to meet a requirement for a Site Safety 

Health Officer, the agency reevaluated the need for this position and eliminated the 

requirement. As a result, Oregon’s proposal became acceptable. 

Sauer received an overall rating of “No Go” primarily because its proposal was rated 

“No Go” under the experience evaluation factor. Specifically, with respect to the 

welding and weld testing experience subfactors, Sauer was rated “No Go” because 

Sauer did not provide any documentation demonstrating that AWS certifications 

were required for performance of its prior projects.1

 The final evaluation results 

were as follows: 

 1

 Although the evaluators noted that only two of Sauer’s past projects were similar in 

size to the current project, notwithstanding the RFP’s requirement for three similar 

projects, the evaluators still concluded that Sauer satisfied this requirement of the 

RFP. AR, Tab E, Evaluation Report, at 7. 

Page 2 B-400709 
NAME TECHNICAL RATING PRICE

Offeror A NO-GO $18,040,882.00 

Sauer NO-GO $19,100,269.102

Oregon GO $17,438,000.00

Offeror B NO-GO $19,798,500.00 

IGE $18,541,145.97

 

AR, Tab E, Source Selection Decision at 17. 

The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed the evaluation results and concluded 

that since Oregon submitted the only offer that received an overall rating of “GO,” 

and submitted a fair and reasonable price, award should be made to Oregon. AR, 

Tab F, Source Selection Decision, at 2. After receiving a debriefing, Sauer filed this 

protest with our Office. 

Sauer essentially argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. 

Specifically, Sauer contends that the RFP only required offerors to describe in 

narrative form how the offeror could meet the contract requirements and that the 

RFP permits the AWS certification requirement to be met through a narrative 

description and that Sauer did mention in its narratives that AWS standards were 

used on prior projects.3

 

In reviewing a protest against an agency’s proposal evaluation, our role is limited to 

ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the 

solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. National Toxicology Labs., Inc., 

B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 5 at 3. An offeror is responsible for submitting 

an adequately written proposal, and runs the risk that its proposal will be evaluated 

unfavorably where it fails to do so. Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B-297016, Mar. 6, 2001, 

2001 CPD ¶ 49 at 3. Based on our review of the record, the agency’s evaluation of 

Sauer’s proposal as a “No Go” was reasonable given Sauer’s lack of documentation 

demonstrating its performance of projects involving AWS certification. 

 2

 Sauer’s actual proposed price was $17,363,881. However, the agency applied a 

HubZone evaluation preference to the total amount for evaluation purposes. 

3

 Sauer also argued in its initial protest that the agency improperly applied the 

HubZone preference to its proposed price on the grounds that Oregon was not a 

HubZone Small Business Concern. The agency in its report admits that the HubZone 

preference should not have been applied here, but maintains that award to Oregon at 

a higher price was proper because Sauer submitted an unacceptable proposal. Given 

that the issue of the application of the HubZone preference has been rendered 

irrelevant by the agency’s conclusion that Sauer’s proposal was unacceptable, we 

will not address this issue. 

Page 3 B-400709 
Although the RFP allowed offerors to describe in narrative form their ability to 

satisfy the RFP’s requirements, the RFP emphasized the importance of providing 

information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror’s capabilities to 

successfully complete the project. The RFP also warned that proposals that did not 

include substantial evidence of the offeror’s experience, qualifications and 

production capability would be considered unacceptable. With respect to the

welding and weld testing experience requirements, the RFP clearly required offerors 

to provide “documentation showing AWS certification for this type of work.” 

Moreover, the RFP specifically provided that offerors providing documentation of 

completion of projects similar in scope and size and AWS certification for similar 

work would be considered to have satisfied the minimum requirements of the RFP. 

Sauer’s proposal did not provide any documentation to demonstrate that its prior 

experience involved welding work that required AWS certifications. Rather, Sauer 

merely described its prior projects and stated that “[w]eldment required certified 

welders and weld testing of full pen welds to AWS standards.” Sauer Proposal 

Section 2, Experience at 1. Sauer’s explanation that it performed weld testing to 

AWS standards is not the same as establishing that it performed welding work that 

required AWS certifications or documentation to that effect. In contrast, other 

offerors provided copies of the AWS certification for the individual employees that 

performed the work on their prior contracts. Given that the RFP was very specific 

concerning the requirement for documentation showing AWS certification on prior 

projects, the agency reasonably concluded that Sauer’s proposal was unacceptable 

based on Sauer’s lack of documentation concerning AWS certification with respect 

to any of its prior projects. 

To the extent the protester argues that the requirement for documentation 

demonstrating AWS certification work was improper because only individuals 

receive AWS certifications not businesses, this issue involves a challenge to the 

terms of the solicitation impropriety that cannot be raised at this juncture. Bid 

Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a)(1) (2008). 

The protest is denied. 

 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 4 B-400709