United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

 

Decision 

Matter of: Capitol Drywall Supply, Inc. 

File: B-400721; B-400722 

Date: January 12, 2009 

Kenneth E. O'Quinn for the protester. 

Howard E. Strackbein, Esq., Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. 

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal is denied where the 

record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

Capitol Drywall Supply, Inc. (CDS) of Jackson, Mississippi protests the evaluation of 

its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9126G-08-R-0119, issued by the 

Army Corps of Engineers for construction materials. CDS contends that, since the 

firm has been “stocking, storing, and delivering material for 15 years,” its proposal 

was unreasonably downgraded under the solicitation’s evaluation factors.1

 Protest 

at 1. 

 

1

 In its protest, CDS stated that it had submitted the same proposal for two 

solicitations (for different geographical regions), and challenged that the same 

proposal information was evaluated differently under each solicitation; accordingly, 

we opened as a separate protest (B-400722) its challenge to its proposal’s lower 

evaluation ratings under the second solicitation, RFP No. W9126G-08-R-0121. The 

agency filed a separate report responding to that protest. CDS failed to file 

comments in response to that report, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations; 

accordingly, we dismiss that protest. 4 C.F.R. § 21.3(i) (2008); Prio-Leau Culinary 

Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-236373.6, Jan. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 90 at 1. CDS also generally 

challenged that two awards were made under the solicitation at issue in protest 

B-400721, instead of as many as four awards, as provided in the RFP. Protest at 1. 

The agency responded to the allegation in its report on the protest, explaining that 

(continued...) 

Comptroller General

of the United States
We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on December 14, 2007, as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, 

provided a detailed statement of work describing the performance requirements, 

including immediate response, timely production, delivery and reporting, 

information management, a safety and health program, staging of materials, an 

automated tracking system and direct communication with drivers, as well as a 

liaison for agency contacts. RFP at 8-16. Up to four awards of indefinitedelivery/indefinite-quantity contracts were to be made for a base year and 4 option 

years; the agency’s needs were to be specified in future task orders to be competed 

among the awardees. Id. at 8, 76. Offerors were advised that their proposals must be 

“sufficiently detailed” to allow the agency to evaluate them under the evaluation 

factors in the RFP. Id. at 51. Also, since award could be made without discussions, 

offerors were advised to include their best terms in their initials proposals. Id. at 49. 

Proposal strengths and weaknesses were to be evaluated under the following four

equally important technical factors: technical approach (including evaluation of the 

firm’s understanding of and proposed method of meeting the referenced statement of

work requirements, as well as its proposed quality control and identified benefits

from subcontractor relationships); delivery (including evaluation of planned 

procedures to expeditiously obtain and deliver varying materials to remote locations

and multiple sites or states simultaneously, as well as proposed delivery 

documentation and reporting procedures); experience (including evaluation of five 

of the firm’s recent contracts with dollar values of at least $1 million that are similar 

in size, scope, and complexity to the current statement of work requirements 

demonstrating the ability to, for instance, respond rapidly, process multiple actions

at once, control costs, timely deliver, and resolve problems with creative solutions); 

and past performance, including an evaluation of the relevance of those five 

contracts, as well as the results of customer surveys completed by the offeror’s past 

performance references. Id. at 52-54, 56-57. Adjectival ratings, ranging from 

unsatisfactory (for “major errors, omissions or deficiencies”) to outstanding (where 

the proposal “very significantly exceeds most or all solicitation requirements”) were 

to be assigned to each proposal for each of the first three technical evaluation 

factors; for the past performance factor, adjectival ratings were to range from

neutral (for “little/no relevant past performance”) to outstanding (where 

“[e]ssentially no doubt exists” for successful performance based on the offeror’s past

 

(...continued) 

due to a decrease in estimated funds available for the work, and a determination that

its needs could be met by the award of only two contracts, only two contracts were 

awarded. Since, in its comments, the protester failed to rebut the agency’s response 

to the challenge, we consider the matter abandoned. Dynamic Instruments, Inc., 

B-291071, Oct. 10, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 183 at 4; The Big Picture Co., Inc., B-220859.2, 

Mar. 4, 1986, 86-1 CPD ¶ 218 at 5. 

Page 2 B-400721; B-400722 
performance record). Id. at 57-59. The awards were to be made to offerors whose 

proposals were deemed to represent the best overall value to the agency; in 

determining best value, the technical factors combined were to be significantly more 

important than price. Id. at 54-57, 76. 

Six offers submitted in response to the solicitation were evaluated. The CDS 

proposal, which was the second lowest-priced proposal received, was rated lowest

for technical merit due, primarily, to a lack of detailed information describing the 

firm’s proposed procedures to perform the statement of work requirements, as well 

as a failure to demonstrate experience performing contracts similar in size, scope, 

and complexity, and which were valued at $1 million or more. Finding that the 

lowest-priced and third lowest-priced proposals, which received significantly higher 

technical ratings than the protester’s proposal, represented the best value to the 

agency, awards were made to those firms; with respect to the latter award, the 

agency concluded in a price/technical tradeoff determination that the higher 

technical merit of the higher-priced proposal warranted the payment of the price 

premium associated with it. Following a debriefing in which the agency reports it

explained to CDS that its proposal lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate either the 

firm’s understanding of, or its proposed methodology to meet, the statement of work 

requirements, CDS protested the agency’s evaluation to our Office. 

CDS generally contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical 

proposal, which was rated unacceptable under the technical approach and delivery 

factors, marginal under the experience factor, and neutral for past performance. The 

agency responds that due to a critical lack of information in the protester’s proposal, 

it was unable to determine that the firm had a sufficient understanding of the 

statement of work requirements; the agency concluded that the information 

provided by the protester was insufficient to rate its proposal acceptable under the 

technical approach and delivery factors. Specifically, the agency evaluators found 

that while the firm’s proposal provided a brief response to the detailed technical 

approach requirements, in which CDS mentioned the firm’s intention to maintain 

inventory and warehouse operations, specific statement of work requirements were 

not referenced, as was required (e.g., regarding subcontractor relationships, safety 

and health plans, quality control, and planned communication and information 

management), and no planned procedures or detailed methodologies were provided 

to explain how the firm intended to perform the statement of work requirements. 

Similarly, under the delivery evaluation factor, while the CDS proposal mentioned 

the use of certain vehicles and noted that certain reports could be produced, the 

evaluators found that insufficient detail was provided to ensure an adequate number 

and type of vehicles would be readily available for simultaneous deliveries, as 

required, and no detailed methodology was presented to either explain what

procedures would be followed to ensure that materials would be expeditiously 

obtained and delivered, including delivery to remote locations, or to explain in any 

meaningful detail the firm’s planned procedures to meet stated reporting 

requirements. 

Page 3 B-400721; B-400722 
Under the experience factor, the evaluators rated the proposal marginal, finding that, 

although the summaries of work performed by CDS indicated a willingness to

provide customer service and effective communication with the customer, with 

evidence of quick response and on-time deliveries, the work descriptions provided in

the proposal failed to demonstrate the relevance of the work to the substantial and 

varied statement of work requirements set out in the RFP; none of the five contracts 

presented for evaluation was demonstrated to be of similar size, scope, and 

complexity as the work required under the RFP. Under the past performance factor, 

the proposal was rated neutral for demonstrating little or no relevant past 

performance, since the proposal’s contract descriptions did not provide details to

demonstrate work of similar size, scope, and complexity, and no past performance 

reference surveys were submitted for consideration, as required by the RFP. 

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selections, our 

Office examines the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was 

reasonable and in accord with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria and 

applicable procurement laws. See Abt Assocs. Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 

CPD ¶ 223 at 4. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written 

proposal that establishes its capability and the merits of its proposed technical 

approach in accordance with the evaluation terms of the solicitation. See Verizon 

Fed., Inc., B-293527, Mar. 26, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 186 at 4. A protester’s mere 

disagreement with the evaluation provides no basis to question the reasonableness 

of the evaluators’ judgments. See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, 

Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11. Further, where, 

as here, technical factors are to be given greater importance than price in the 

determination of which proposal offers the agency the best overall value, 

price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and we will not disturb awards to offerors

whose proposals have higher technical ratings and higher prices so long as the result 

is consistent with the evaluation factors and the agency has reasonably determined 

that the technical superiority outweighs the price difference. See Structural 

Preservation Sys., Inc., B-285085, July 14, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 131 at 7. 

 

As stated above, the solicitation here required detailed responses from offerors in 

their proposals setting out their planned procedures to perform a comprehensive set

of requirements. Our review of the record here confirms the reasonableness of the 

agency’s findings of a critical lack of information in the proposal to demonstrate the 

firm’s understanding of, and planned procedures to meet, the multitude of

performance requirements set out in the RFP. Since such information was necessary 

for evaluation under the first two technical evaluation factors, we have no basis to 

question the reasonableness of the ratings of unacceptable assigned to the firm’s 

proposal under the technical approach and delivery evaluation factors. 

The RFP also required a demonstration of relevant experience performing contracts

of similar size, scope, and complexity, valued at $1 million and performed within the 

past 5 years. Our review of the record shows there is no basis to question the 

reasonableness of the marginal rating assigned under the experience evaluation 

Page 4 B-400721; B-400722 
factor, since the protester’s proposal failed to demonstrate that the contracts it

referenced for review were either performed within the past 5 years or encompassed 

work of similar size, scope, or complexity (or met the dollar value threshold 

required) compared to the work requirements here. Similarly, since the relevance of 

the contracts, as described in the proposal, was reasonably determined to be 

marginal, at best, we also have no basis to question the reasonableness of the neutral 

rating assigned under the past performance factor. The past performance evaluation

was to be based not only on the relevance of the work, but the quality of the work 

performed, which was to be assessed in survey forms to be completed and returned 

to the agency by the firm’s past performance references. No such surveys were 

submitted for CDS. The rating of neutral for past performance thus is

unobjectionable, since, as defined by the RFP, such rating is applicable where a 

proposal demonstrates “little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a 

meaningful performance risk prediction.” RFP at 59. 

Given the lack of detail in CDS’s proposal under each technical evaluation factor, we 

have no basis to question the evaluation. See Financial & Realty Servs, LLC, 

B-299605.2, Aug. 9, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 161 at 4. Further, since the RFP provided for 

awards based on a determination of which proposals presented the best value to the 

agency, with technical merit more important than price, there is no basis to question 

the selection of a higher-rated, lower-priced proposal, and a higher-rated, higherpriced proposal (where, as noted above, the agency reasonably determined that the 

technical superiority of the higher-priced proposal warranted the price premium 

associated with the award).2

 See Financial & Realty Servs, LLC, supra at 5-6. While 

 2

 In its comments, CDS suggests that the RFP requirements for what the firm refers 

to as “just in time delivery” and a required demonstration of experience with

$1 million contracts are excessive and should not be applied to CDS, since the firm 

has a “better understanding” of manufacturer schedules affecting delivery, and 

because it believes certain other, unrelated contracts have been awarded to small 

businesses in the past for work (and at dollar amounts) exceeding those firms’ prior 

experience. Comments at 1. These contentions provide no basis to question the 

award. First, to the extent the protester is now challenging the solicitation’s stated 

requirements, its challenge is untimely, as protests of apparent improprieties in a 

solicitation must be filed prior to the closing date for the receipt of proposals. Bid 

Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1). Furthermore, reference to other unrelated 

awards is irrelevant here, as each procurement is a separate transaction; as 

discussed above, the protester has provided no basis to conclude that the awards

here were made other than in accordance with the stated requirements of this 

procurement. See Patriot Contract Servs., LLC; Keystone Shipping Servs., Inc. et al., 

B-278276.11 et al., Sept. 22, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 77 at 7 n.6. 

Page 5 B-400721; B-400722 
CDS disagrees with the evaluation and awards, its mere disagreement does not show 

that the agency’s actions were not reasonably based. See Citywide Managing Servs.

of Port Washington, Inc., supra. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 6 B-400721; B-400722