United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: William J. Brant, Jr. & Associates 

File: B-406908

Date: September 26, 2012

William J. Brant Jr., Esq., for the protester.

Cameron V. Gore, Esq., and Katherine Smyth, Esq., Department of Veterans 

Affairs, for the agency.

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest challenging an agency’s technical evaluation of protester’s proposal is 

denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and 

consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

William J. Brant, Jr. & Associates (Brant), of Schererville, Indiana, protests the

award of a contract to US Federal Properties Co. (USFP), of Kansas City, Missouri, 

under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-101-11-RP-0175, issued by the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for construction and lease of an outpatient 

clinic. Brant challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal.

We deny the protest.1

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on September 9, 2011, sought offers for the lease of 

approximately 95,969 square feet in a new building for an outpatient clinic in Grand 

Rapids, Michigan. Offerors were informed that award would be made on a best 

 1 Because a protective order was not issued in connection with this protest, our 

discussion is necessarily general.
Page 2 B-406908 

value basis, considering price and the following technical evaluation factors: 

technical quality, evidence of capability to perform prior to award, and operations 

and maintenance plan. RFP §§ 2.1.1-2.1.4. The technical evaluation factors

combined were stated to be equal in weight to price. RFP § 2.1.

As relevant here, with respect to the technical quality factor, offerors were informed 

that proposals would be evaluated for the quality of their building and design 

concept, quality of site development, and site physical security. RFP § 2.1.2. With 

respect to the evidence of capability to perform factor, offerors were required to 

provide examples of past performance and experience of successfully building, 

renovating, and maintaining facilities comparable in size and complexity to project 

here. RFP § 2.1.3. The RFP included a past performance survey form that offerors 

were to fill out and return for each past performance contract, and the RFP did not 

provide a limit on the number of contracts that could be submitted for past 

performance consideration. With respect to the operations and maintenance plan 

factor, offerors were to provide a plan that addressed, at a minimum, interior and 

exterior maintenance of the building. RFP § 2.1.4.

VA received proposals from 21 offerors, including Brant and USFP. Following the 

evaluation of initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range 

composed of seven proposals, including Brant’s and USFP’s. The agency 

conducted discussions and received and evaluated revised proposals. Revised 

proposals were point scored by the agency’s evaluators, which supported their point 

scores with narrative explanations. Brant’s revised proposal, which was the lowestpriced, received the lowest technical score of the seven competitive range offerors. 

USFP’s revised proposal, which was the second lowest-priced proposal, received 

the highest technical score. See Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Price Negotiation 

Memorandum, at 24.

With respect to Brant’s technical proposal, the evaluators noted a number of 

strengths and weaknesses under each of the technical evaluation factors. As 

relevant here, the evaluators noted as a weakness under the technical quality factor 

that Brant had removed certain columns from its building design in response to the 

agency’s discussions with the firm concerning a discrepancy in its proposal 

regarding the columns. Brant provided no explanation in its revised proposal as to 

the structural impact of removing the columns. See AR, Tab 5, Evaluator Scoring 

Worksheets, at A.2, B.2-3, C.2-3. D.2, E.2-3. 

Under the evidence of capability to perform factor, the evaluators noted as a 

weakness that Brant had limited experience in recent years with healthcare 

projects. In this regard, the agency noted that, although Brant’s proposal indicated 

that it currently owns and operates seven VA facilities, its last contract with the VA 

appeared to be in 2004. Id. at A.10, B.13. 
Page 3 B-406908 

Under the operations and maintenance plan factor, the agency assessed as a 

weakness Brant’s failure to indicate that it would provide a full-time, on-site 

maintenance person during work hours. Id. at C.12. 

VA found that USPS’s revised proposal was the most advantageous to the VA and 

made award to that firm. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Brant challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal, arguing that the 

agency’s assignment of the weaknesses identified above was unreasonable.2

 

Specifically, Brant argues that the agency should have known that the columns 

used in its building design were merely decorative, rather than structural; that the 

firm had submitted sufficient experience to demonstrate that it was qualified to 

perform the contract; and that its proposal offered an on-site maintenance 

superintendant.

3

 

In reviewing protests challenging the evaluation of proposals, we do not conduct a 

new evaluation or substitute our judgment for that of the agency but examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the RFP evaluation criteria. Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 

CPD ¶ 223 at 4.

The record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with 

the stated evaluation criteria. With regard to the weakness assigned to Brant’s 

proposal for the unexplained removal of columns, Brant does not assert that its 

 2 Brant’s initial protest raised a number of other challenges to the evaluation of its 

proposal based upon the firm’s debriefing. Protest at 2-3. In its report, the agency 

addressed all of the protester’s contentions. Brant’s comments on the agency’s 

report focus on the agency’s assignment of weaknesses related to its removal of 

columns, past performance, and on-site maintenance manager. We consider the 

remainder of its protest to have been abandoned. See Cedar Elec., Inc., 

B-402284.2, Mar. 19, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 79 at 3 n.4. Furthermore, we note that 

Brant did not protest the agency’s use of point scoring, or its best value judgment. 

3 Brant also asserts that it was improper for the agency to evaluate its decorative

improvements to the building. In this regard, the agency’s evaluation had found that 

Brant’s building design and aesthetics met the minimum requirements of the RFP, 

but were not exceptional (for example, Brant’s building’s “flow” was not “warm”). 

AR, Tab 5, Evaluator Scoring Worksheets, at D.2. There is no merit to this 

argument. The RFP plainly stated that the agency would consider design and 

aesthetics in evaluating proposals under the technical quality factor. See RFP 

§ 2.1.2.A(2).
Page 4 B-406908 

revised proposal provided an explanation as to the impact of removing the columns. 

Rather, Brant merely asserts that the agency should have known (based upon its 

other submissions) that the columns were not structural. It is an offeror’s 

responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information 

which allows for a meaningful review by the procuring agency. Mike Kesler Enter., 

B-401633, Oct. 23, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 205 at 2-3. We find no basis to question the 

evaluators’ concern with Brant’s removal of the columns in its revised proposal, 

where Brant failed to explain the removal to the agency.

With regard to Brant’s past performance, the agency reasonably found that Brant’s 

proposal demonstrated little relevant past performance for the firm. In this regard, 

Brant’s proposal provided past performance information for a VA outpatient clinic it 

constructed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2004; a VA nursing home constructed in 

2002; a supermarket constructed in 2006; and a gymnasium constructed in 2004. 

AR, Tab 7, Brant Technical Proposal, Vol. 1, Sect. 5. Although Brant argues that it 

had significant past performance and points to a statement in its proposal that the 

protester had built numerous VA facilities, Brant’s proposal did not provide

information for these projects.4

Brant also challenges the weakness evaluated in its proposal with respect to 

providing a full-time, on-site maintenance manager. The protester contends that it 

in fact proposed such a manager, pointing out that the first page of its operations 

and maintenance plan states that the plan uses an “onsite maintenance 

superintendent.” See Comments at 3. That said, Brant’s proposal also states that 

its maintenance superintendent would be available and local, see AR, Tab 7, Brant 

Technical Proposal, at Vo1. 1, Sect. 18, at 17, causing the evaluators to question 

whether the superintendent would be on-site full-time. Although Brant disagrees 

with the evaluators’ concern in this regard, it has not shown the concern to be 

unreasonable.

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 4 Brant notes that its proposal contains a section describing the firm, in which Brant 

lists 6 outpatient clinics and 1 nursing home by location that are “a few of the Brant 

signatures.” AR, Tab 7, Brant Technical Proposal, Vol. 1, Sect. 2, at 1. Brant, 

however, provided no further information about these clinics (other than the 1 clinic 

and the 1 nursing home mentioned above).