United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: West Construction, Inc.

File: B-406511

Date: June 15, 2012

William L. Bruckner, Esq., Bruckner & Walker, LLP, for the protester.

Douglas L. Patin, Esq., and Aron C. Beezley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 

LLP, for Carter Concrete Structures, Inc., the intervenor.

Joylyn A. Winter, 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 and selection of the 

lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for award is denied, where the record shows that 

the agency’s evaluation and selection decision was reasonable and consistent with 

the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

West Construction, Inc., of Lake Worth, Florida, protests the award of a contract to 

Carter Concrete Structures, Inc., of Stone Mountain, Georgia, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. VA-101-11-RP-0132, issued by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs for construction services. West challenges the agency’s evaluation of 

proposals and source selection.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provided for the award of a 

fixed-priced contract to design and build a parking structure at the VA Caribbean 

Healthcare System in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Offerors were informed that award 

would be made on a best value basis, considering price and the following weighted 

technical evaluation factors: past performance (50 points); construction 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This version has been 

approved for public release.
Page 2 B-406511 

management (35 points);1 and proposed schedule (15 points). The technical 

evaluation factors were stated to be, when combined, significantly more important 

than price. RFP § 00 11 21, at 3.

Under the past performance factor, offerors were instructed to demonstrate 

experience with at least 3 design-build projects, 2 parking garage projects, and 

2 projects completed in the geographical region. The RFP stated that a better score 

would be achieved by satisfying all three experience areas requirements. See id.

at 6. Under the construction management approach factor, offerors were instructed 

to describe the relevant experience of key personnel (including a project manager, a 

superintendent, and a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) manager), and 

provide a QA/QC plan along with a project organizational chart/narrative. Id. at 7-8. 

VA received 11 proposals, including West’s and Carter’s, that were evaluated by the 

agency’s source selection evaluation team (SSET). Both West and Carter proposed 

to subcontract some of the work to other firms. In this regard, West proposed to 

subcontract, among other things, the structural concrete work to Frama Construction 

Company, Inc. Carter proposed to subcontract the architectural/engineering aspects 

of the contract. 

West’s and Carter’s proposals were evaluated as follows:

West Carter

Past performance 42.0 41.8

Construction management 28.3 26.0

Proposed schedule 13.5 10.0

TOTAL 83.8 77.8

Price $32,357,760 $26,884,000

Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Technical Evaluation Narrative, at 5, 7. 

In addition to assigning point scores, the SSET identified each offerors’ respective 

strengths and weaknesses under each evaluation factor. Under the past 

performance factor, the agency found that both Carter and West had a number of 

strengths and weaknesses. West’s evaluated strengths included its plan to team 

with a Puerto-Rican firm that had extensive design-build parking garage experience, 

and that West itself had experience in Puerto Rico. Id. at 3. West’s weaknesses 

under this factor included not having experience with design-build projects and no 

experience in building parking garages. Id.

 1 The construction management factor included two subfactors: personnel 

experience and technical/management approach. RFP § 00 11 21, at 7-8.
Page 3 B-406511 

Carter’s evaluated strengths under the past performance factor included extensive 

design-build parking garage experience (including experience with the VA), and that 

Carter had teamed with a Puerto-Rican architect/engineering (A/E) firm, which had 

experience with designing and building parking garages. Id. at 5. Carter’s 

weaknesses under this factor included the firm not having been the lead design-build 

firm on relevant projects and not having experience in the geographic region. Id.

at 5-6.

Under the construction management factor, the agency found that both firms’ 

proposals had strengths and weaknesses. Among the numerous strengths identified 

in West’s proposal was that West proposed experienced key personnel and that its 

QA/QC plan was organized and detailed. West’s weaknesses included that its 

proposed superintendent did not have certain important certifications (such as an 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 30-hour training 

certification), that its proposed QA/QC manager did not demonstrate experience for 

“post tensioned parking garages projects,” and that the relationship between West 

and its concrete subcontractor (Frama) was not clear. Id. at 6.

The VA also assessed numerous strengths in Carter’s proposal under the 

construction management factor for its proposed key personnel (including, for 

example, that its proposed project manager had excellent experience with parking 

garage projects), and for a well-written QA/QC plan. Id. at 7. Carter’s weaknesses 

under this factor included that it had not identified a QA/QC manager and that it 

failed to include the names of its proposed key personnel in its organizational charts. 

Id.

 

Under the schedule factor, the agency assessed as a strength the outstanding detail 

of West’s schedule, but noted as a weakness that the firm had not provided a short 

narrative supporting its schedule. Id. at 5. With respect to Carter’s proposal, the 

agency assessed as a strength the “logic” of Carter’s bar chart construction 

schedule, but noted as weaknesses the chart’s lack of detail and the failure to 

include a short narrative. Id. at 7.

The contracting officer (CO), who was the source selection authority, reviewed the 

SSET’s evaluation report, comparing the respective strengths and weaknesses of 

the two firms’ technical proposals under each of the evaluation criteria. AR, Tab 5, 

Selection Decision, at 11. Specifically, the CO examined the basis for West’s higher 

technical score compared to Carter’s. For example, under the past performance 

factor, the CO found that West’s higher score was due to West having experience in 

Puerto Rico and to its excellent letters of recommendation. Id. at 7. In comparison, 

the CO found that Carter’s slightly lower score reflected the firm’s lack of experience 

in Puerto Rico. The CO found, however, that Carter’s weakness in this regard was 

mitigated by the fact that it had teamed with a local A/E company which had parking 

garage design-build experience, and that Carter had excellent client satisfaction 
Page 4 B-406511 

surveys. Id. The CO concluded that many of West’s strengths were offset by 

strengths in Carter’s proposal, and that West’s few advantages over Carter’s 

proposal (such as naming a QA/QC manager with good experience) did not justify 

West’s significantly higher price. Id. at 11.

Award was made to Carter. Following a debriefing, West protested to our Office. 

DISCUSSION

West challenges every one of the weaknesses that the VA identified in the firm’s 

proposal.2 For example, West objects to the agency’s assessment under the past 

performance factor that West did not have design-build project experience. West 

contends this assessment was unreasonable because its proposed team members 

had such experience. As another example, West challenges the agency’s 

assessment of weaknesses under the construction management evaluation factor 

with respect to its proposed superintendent not having a 30-hour OSHA training 

certification and to its proposed QA/QC manger lacking parking garage construction 

experience. West contends that the RFP did not require offerors to provide 

personnel with such qualifications or experience.

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.

In response to the protest, the agency explained the basis of the evaluated 

weaknesses in West’s proposal, specifically responding to each of the protester’s 

objections.3

 2 West raises numerous objections to the agency’s evaluation of its and Carter’s 

technical proposals and to the selection decision. We have considered all of the 

protester’s arguments--although we specifically address only the principal ones--and 

find that they provide no basis to sustain the protest.

 For example, with respect to the weakness assessed for West’s lack of 

design-build experience, the agency states that its concern was that West, as the 

3 With respect to the weakness assessed for West’s failure to provide a narrative 

summary of its construction schedule, West contends that the firm provided a 

4-page narrative in its proposal. In response, the agency asserts that its copies of 

the protester’s proposal contained no such narrative, and the agency provides 

declarations from the contracting officer and contracting specialist stating that West’s 

proposal contained no such narrative. We have no basis to question this assertion, 

given West’s failure to provide any proof that its proposal in fact included this 

information. 
Page 5 B-406511 

prime contractor, lacked such experience. Similarly, the agency explains that the 

weakness assessed with respect to West’s superintendent lacking an OSHA 

certification was appropriate because the RFP required that an OSHA certified 

person be present at the worksite, and the VA’s guidelines require that this person to 

be the superintendent. The agency explained that it was reasonable to expect that a 

proposed QA/QC manager would have some experience with the type of structure 

being constructed. Agency Legal Memorandum, Apr. 13, 2012, at 13-14; CO’s 

Statement at 4-5. 

West has not meaningfully replied to the agency’s statements and explanations. 

Rather, the protester in its comments merely repeats its initial protest grounds. See

Protester’s Comments, Apr. 23, 2012, at 7-8. Although this demonstrates West’s 

continued disagreement with the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, the failure to 

address the agency’s explanations does not show that the agency’s evaluation was 

unreasonable. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s 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.

West also challenges the agency’s evaluation of Carter’s technical proposal. 

Specifically, West contends that Carter failed to provide certain information in its 

proposal that should have resulted in the elimination of Carter’s proposal from the 

competition. For example, West states that Carter did not demonstrate corporate 

experience in the region; failed to provide letters of recommendation for its designbuild projects and parking garage projects; failed to provide certain information 

regarding various key personnel; failed to provide certain information regarding its 

QA/QC plan; and failed to provide required schedule information. See Protester’s 

Comments, Apr. 23, 2012, at 2-7. 

In response, the agency contends that West’s arguments are without merit and 

explains the basis of its evaluation. For example, the VA states that Carter 

proposed team members with corporate experience in the region and disagrees that 

the RFP required offers to submit letters of recommendation for its design-build 

projects. The agency also notes that some of West’s concerns with Carter’s 

proposal were noted by the agency in its evaluation, where the agency assessed 

these concerns as weaknesses. See Agency Supp. Legal Memo, May 3, 2012, 

at 5-6. Although it was given an opportunity to reply to the agency’s arguments and 

explanations in this regard, West did not contest or otherwise challenge the agency’s 

explanations. Again, West’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation does 

not demonstrate that the agency’s judgment was unreasonable.

West also challenges the agency’s selection of Carter’s lower-rated, lower-priced 

proposal for award. West contends that this was not consistent with the the RFP’s 

evaluation scheme that provided that the technical factors, combined, were 

significantly more important than price.
Page 6 B-406511 

Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad discretion in 

determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and 

price evaluation results; price/technical trade-offs may be made, and the extent to 

which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality 

and consistency with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. World Airways, Inc., 

B-402674, June 25, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 284 at 12. Even where, as here, technical 

merit is significantly more important than cost, an agency may properly select a 

lower-cost, lower-rated proposal if it reasonably decides that the cost premium 

involved in selecting a higher-rated, higher-cost proposal is not justified. Hogar 

Crea, Inc., B-311265, May 27, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 107 at 8.

The record here does not support West’s contention that the agency’s selection 

decision was inconsistent with the solicitation’s best value award scheme and failed 

to adequately consider the technical merit of the protester’s proposal. The CO 

recognized that the technical superiority was substantially more important than low 

price in the solicitation’s selection criteria and that West’s proposal had been found 

technically superior to Carter’s. Nevertheless, the CO concluded that Carter’s lower 

price outweighed West’s technical advantage. West has not shown that the CO’s 

judgment in this regard was unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel