United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Rocamar Engineering Services, Inc. 

File: B-406514

Date: June 20, 2012

Frank V. Reilly, Esq., Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bamdas, 

Eskalyo & Dunbrack, P.A., for the protester.

Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest against the rejection of the protestor’s proposal of a modular bastion wall 

defense system for failing a fire/burn test conducted by the agency is sustained 

where the record shows that the test was unfair and unreasonable.

DECISION

Rocamar Engineering Services, Inc., of Delray Beach, Florida, protests the rejection 

of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-WHARC-10-R-0007, issued 

by the United States Department of State (DOS), for modular bastion wall defense

systems. Rocamar challenges the propriety of a second fire/burn test that was 

conducted by the agency on its system, which resulted in the rejection of its 

proposal.

We sustain the protest.

The RFP, issued on July 23, 2010, sought pre-fabricated modular bastion wall 

defense systems for various Columbian Army and Police bases. These 

requirements were to be fulfilled under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

contract, under which fixed-price task orders would be issued for specific base 

projects. The State Department estimates the value of this contract at between 

$750,000 and $1.25 million per year. 

The RFP specifications provided that the bastion wall defense system were required 

to meet certain minimum force protection standards and provided for the testing of 

the proposed systems to determine whether they were acceptable. As relevant 
Page 2 B-406514 

here, the systems were required to be fire proof and provide material retention post 

exposure to flame.1

 See RFP, amend. No. 0009, attach. 7, § 5.1. To determine 

whether the system met the fire proof standard, the RFP stated that the “wall will be 

doused with flammable liquids, ignited, and left to burn itself out.” Id. at attach 8, 

§ 2.1.2. The system was considered to have passed the test if there was “no

resulting structural damage after flames extinguish” and the “fill material [is] . . .

retained within the bastion wall . . . .” Id. The RFP provided that if the system failed 

this test, it would be determined unacceptable. Id.

The design of the protester’s wall system involved compacted soil which was 

covered by a fire resistant geotextile material compressed by square wire mesh 

fencing that encapsulated the wall. See Rocamar President Affidavit (May 15, 

2012) at 6-8. The record shows that Rocamar’s wall system passed all of the 

minimum force protection standards, including the fire/burn test administered by the 

agency to the front of Rocamar’s wall system.

2

 Rocamar reports that DOS 

indicated that it had passed all of the required testing and that disassembly of the 

wall system could be started. Protest at 5. However, the record shows that after 

Rocamar had begun dismantling the wall system, the agency decided to conduct a 

second fire/burn test on the rear side of the system.

3

 See Video Tape (VT) 

at 27:47-36-34. The agency explains that the second fire/burn test was conducted

after partial demolition of the system revealed that the wall system was not covered 

with the same material on all sides. See DOS Comments (May 1, 2012) at 2. The 

contemporaneous DOS test report states:

Fire resistant bastion material did not cover 360 degrees of wall. This 

was discovered immediately when disassembly was begun. To 

validate this discovery, the fire test was conducted on the rear of the 

wall and the product failed (sand came out of the wall).

Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Bastion Walls Testing Report, at 5.

 1 Also, the system was required to be resistant to various environmental factors, 

serve as a blocking system for external visual observation, and be able to effectively 

mitigate damage from direct fire and indirect fire weapons attacks. See RFP, 

amend. No. 0009, attach. 7, § 5.

2 Seven offerors’ systems were subjected to the fire/burn test. All passed the test, 

except for Rocamar’s and another offeror’s systems. Email from DOS (May 7, 

2012).

3 During the course of this protest, DOS provided a video tape of the specific tests 

conducted on the Rocamar wall system, including the second fire/burn test. 
Page 3 B-406514 

Rocamar contends that requiring its wall system to undergo a second fire/burn test,

after it began dismantling its wall system, was unfair and improper. Rocamar

argues that the second fire/burn test on the rear non-threat side of the wall system 

was not contemplated by the solicitation’s test provisions. Rocamar also notes that 

none of the other offerors’ wall systems were required to pass a second burn test on 

the non-threat side of their wall systems after partial demolition. Email from DOS 

(May 7, 2012).

Our Office will review an allegedly improper technical evaluation of product samples 

to determine whether the evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the 

evaluation criteria. We will not make an independent determination of the merits of 

an offeror’s proposal; rather, we will review the evaluation record, including the 

results of any test demonstration, to ensure that the agency’s technical judgment 

has a rational basis and is consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Optical 

Sys. Tech, Inc., B-296516.2, B-296516.3, Mar. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 63 at 5. Our 

Office affords particular deference to the technical expertise of agency personnel 

regarding judgments that involve matters of human life and safety and the conduct 

of qualification testing is an area where contracting agencies have broad discretion 

so long as their action is reasonable and does not prejudice potential offerors by, for 

example, treating them unequally. See Science Applications Int’l Corp., B-405612 

et al., Dec. 5, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 8 at 7; Chemonics Indus., Inc., B-260284, Apr. 19, 

1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 206 at 4. As discussed below, we cannot conclude that DOS 

fairly or reasonably conducted the second fire/burn test of Rocamar’s proposed 

system.

Our review of the video tape of the testing process confirms that the second 

fire/burn test was conducted by the DOS testing official, after Rocamar began to 

dismantle the components of its wall system. See VT at 27:47-36-34. Indeed, the 

protester notes that the video shows that prior to the unannounced second fire/burn 

test, the mesh was cut by bolt cutters approximately 210 times, had materials 

removed from the system with shovels, and the containment material cut with a 

razor. See Protester’s Supp. Comments (May 8, 2012) at 5-6; Rocamar President 

Affidavit (May 15, 2012) at 6.

As noted, the agency argues that such action was justified because the testing 

official observed that Rocamar’s wall system was constructed with a different 

material on the rear wall. See DOS Reply Comments (May 1, 2012) at 2. However, 

there is nothing in the RFP that would reasonably suggest that testing would be 

performed on anything other than the fully assembled system. See RFP, amend. 

No. 0009, attach. 8, § 2.1.2.4 Nor was any other offeror subjected to a similar test 

of its system.5

 4 Other than the description of the fire/burn test in the RFP (quoted above), the

record contains no testing protocol. The protester states that when asked about the 

 

(continued...)
Page 4 B-406514 

In a sworn statement, Rocamar’s president, who is a licensed engineer, attributes 

the failure of its wall system to pass the DOS’s second burn test to the loss of the 

wall system’s compaction resulting from partially dismantling the wall system.

6

 He 

also states that the demolition directly compromised the structural integrity of its 

system and caused the wall system to lose its compaction, which was a key 

component of the design of its system. He explains that the pre-test demolition

allowed excess oxygen into Rocamar’s wall system, which caused the fill inside the 

protester’s system to move outside the structure, and for Rocamar’s system to fail 

the test. Affidavit of Rocamar’s President (May 15, 2012) at 6-7. The agency has 

not refuted the protester’s engineering analysis of the design of its system and what 

would happen if there was a loss of compaction in the system.

7

 Based on this 

record, we find that DOS’s second fire/burn test of Rocomar’s wall system was 

neither fair nor reasonable, and sustain the protest on this basis.

We recommend that the agency review its test results to determine whether

Rocamar’s system should be considered acceptable. The agency should also 

review the test results of the other offerors’ systems to determine whether further 

testing is required to determine their acceptability. In the event the agency 

determines that Rocamar’s system requires further testing, we recommend that

Rocamar be provided an opportunity to provide its system for testing and that it be 

tested in accordance with the RFP and consistent with the procedures used in 

testing the other offerors’ systems. We also recommend that the protester be 

reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable 

 

(...continued)

authority for a second test, the DOS testing official simply stated “I do what I want 

and you (me) do not have the right to question my actions.” Protest at 5.

5 The record contains pictures of other offerors’ wall system that appear to be 

constructed in the same manner as Rocamar’s system. See AR, Tab 14, Bastion 

Wall Testing Photographs.

6 According to the engineer there was no requirement to construct the wall system 

with identical material and it has submitted pictures of the agency’s earlier tests 

purportedly showing that its system passed this fire/burn test constructed with the 

same material it utilized on the rear side of its wall system for the second test. See

Affidavit of Rocamar’s President (May 15, 2012) at 2-3. 

7 The agency instead argues that our Office should strike the president’s sworn 

statement because (1) expert testimony is not allowed where the expert has a 

financial interest in the matter, and (2) Rocamar’s president has not made a 

showing of relevant expertise in the product his company provides. None of these 

arguments, however, provide a valid basis for us not to consider the president’s 

sworn and probative statements.
Page 5 B-406514 

attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1) (2012). The protester should submit its 

certified claim for such costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, 

directly with the agency within 60 days of receiving this decision. 4 C.F.R. 

§ 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel