United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Alares, LLC 

File: B-407124

Date: November 7, 2012

Donald Maggioli for the protester.

Jeanne S. Morris, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

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

failed to address compliance with infection control procedures and provide a 

construction safety plan, as required by the solicitation, and agency was not 

required to infer or piece together such information from the protester’s past 

performance information.

DECISION

Alares, LLC, of Quincy, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Ironclad 

Services, Inc., of Springfield, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. VA241-12-R-0714, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 

replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Alares 

challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small 

businesses, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to replace two HVAC 

units at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Providence, Rhode Island. RFP at 1, 15. 

Offerors were informed that award would be made, without conducting discussions,

on a best-value basis considering the following factors: management approach, 

past performance, and price. Id. at 16. The management approach and past 

performance evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important 

than price. Id. The RFP identified the following five, equally-weighted subfactors 
Page 2 B-407124 

under the management approach factor: adherence to construction schedule; 

technical approach; experience; construction safety plan; and compliance with 

infection control procedures. Id. at 17. Offerors were instructed to provide separate 

technical, past performance, and price proposals. See id. at 17, 20, 23.

With regard to the construction safety plan subfactor, offerors were required to 

submit a plan that meets the RFP’s various safety requirements, including with 

regard to fire systems, life safety measures, fire wall/smoke barriers, and asbestos 

and lead inspections. Id. at 17-18, 23; Addenda, Hospital Requirements, 

Bldgs. 7, 9. Offerors were also required to provide documentation showing 

successful training of personnel in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements, and to establish the offeror’s familiarity and 

compliance with OSHA requirements. Offerors were also instructed to provide 

information regarding prior safety accidents or violations of OSHA or Environmental 

Protection Agency requirements. Id. at 18.

With regard to the compliance with infection control procedures subfactor, 

offerors were required to address compliance with the requirements of the infection

control procedures at the VAMC, including with regard to supervision, employee 

responsibilities, work practices, training, materials, equipment, and risk assessment 

methods. Id. at 17-18, 23.

With regard to the past performance factor, offerors were required to identify 

current, relevant contracts. See id. at 23, 20-21. The RFP provided that the 

agency would consider data provided by the offeror, information obtained from 

questionnaires completed by the offeror’s references, and information from other 

sources. See id. at 20-23, 25-32. Offerors were informed that the agency would 

evaluate, among other things under this factor, the offeror’s past performance with 

infection control, compliance with specifications, and ability to successfully perform. 

See id. at 20.

The agency received proposals from seven offerors, including Alares and Ironclad, 

which were evaluated as follows:1

 1 The RFP provided that the management approach factor would be evaluated as 

blue, green, yellow, pink or red. As relevant here, a pink rating reflected a proposal 

that met some, but not all of the RFP requirements, and where its overall quality 

could not be determined because of errors, omissions, or deficiencies that could 

be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of proposal. See RFP at 19. A 

blue rating reflected a proposal that met all, and demonstrated an excellent 

understanding of, the RFP requirements and was excellent in all respects. Id. The 

RFP provided that past performance would be evaluated as very low risk, low risk, 

average risk, above average risk, high risk, or neutral. Id. at 22.
Page 3 B-407124 

Management 

Approach2 Past Performance Price

Alares Pink Above average risk $2,518,874

Ironclad Blue Low risk $2,781,918

AR at 1; Tab E, Source Selection Decision, at 19. Alares’ pink rating under the 

management approach factor reflected the agency’s assessment that, although

the firm demonstrated HVAC experience in a hospital environment and successful 

contract completion, the firm did not demonstrate a complete understanding of the 

work and its proposal did not address any construction safety requirements or 

infection control criteria as required by the RFP. AR, Tab E, Source Selection 

Decision, at 16. Ironclad’s blue rating, on the other hand, reflected the agency’s 

assessment that Ironclad’s proposal satisfied all of the solicitation requirements

and demonstrated an understanding of the requirements. See id. at 18-19.

The contracting officer, who was the source selection authority for this procurement, 

determined that Ironclad’s proposal represented the best value to the government. 

Id. at 19; see Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 4. Award was made to 

Ironclad and this protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Alares protests the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the management 

approach and past performance factors, arguing that its proposal merited higher 

ratings under these factors. See Protest at 2; Comments at 1-2. In this regard, 

the protester maintains that the agency should have considered Alares’ past 

performance at three other VA facilities as satisfying the RFP’s safety and infection

control requirements under the management approach evaluation factor. Id. Alares 

also contends that the agency deviated from the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria by 

giving less weight to the past performance factor than to the management approach 

factor. See id.; Comments at 3.

The VA responds that it reasonably evaluated Alares’ proposal consistent with the 

RFP’s requirements. AR at 4. The agency contends that the protester asks the 

agency to overlook deficiencies in Alares’ proposal and that the contracting officer 

had no duty to compensate for the poorly written proposal. See id. at 3.

It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately 

detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation 

requirements and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. See, e.g., 

 2 The source selection decision erroneously entitled this factor as “technical.” See

Agency Report (AR), Tab E, Source Selection Decision, at 12-20.
Page 4 B-407124 

International Med. Corps, B-403688, Dec. 6, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 292 at 7. An offeror 

is responsible for affirmatively demonstrating the merits of its proposal and risks the 

rejection of its proposal if it fails to do so. HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, 

Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. 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 RFP here explicitly required offerors’ technical proposals to include a 

construction safety plan and address compliance with the VAMC’s infection control 

procedures. RFP at 17-18, 23. The protester, however, concedes that its technical 

proposal “omitted details regarding safety and infectious control” and that “this was 

[Alares’] oversight . . . .”3 Protest at 2; Comments at 2. Clearly stated RFP 

technical requirements are considered material to the needs of the government, and 

a proposal that fails to conform to such material terms is technically unacceptable 

and may not form the basis for award. National Shower Express, Inc.; Rickaby Fire 

Support, B-293970, B-293970.2, July 15, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 140 at 4-5; Outdoor 

Venture Corp., B-288894.2, Dec. 19, 2001, 2002 CPD ¶ 13 at 2-3.

There is no merit to Alares’ argument that its past performance at other VAMC’s

showed that Alares would satisfy the RFP’s requirements with respect to the 

construction safety plan and infection control procedures. As noted above, offerors 

were required to provide plans addressing these requirements. Agencies are not 

required to infer information from an inadequately detailed proposal or information 

that the protester elected not to provide. See, e.g., Leach Mgmt. Consulting Corp., 

B-292493.2, Oct. 3, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 175 at 5 (protester’s argument that its 

experience should have been apparent and that it related to other activities 

identified in its proposal denied); James Constr., B-402429, Apr. 21, 2010, 2010 

CPD ¶ 98 at 5 (agency not required to piece together general statements 

and disparate parts of protester’s proposal to determine the protester’s intent); 

LexisNexis, Inc., B-299381, Apr. 17, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 73 at 6-7 n.6 (an agency is 

under no obligation to parse protester's proposal to try to determine whether the 

 3 Alares also contends that the agency was required to clarify or conduct 

discussions with Alares regarding any “minor informalities and irregularities” in its 

technical proposal, and cites the RFP’s reservation of the agency’s right to conduct 

discussions if necessary. Protest at 2-3, citing RFP at 16; see Comments at 2-3. 

Correction of omissions identified in Alares’ proposal, however, would not constitute 

clarifications, but discussions. See, e.g., Environmental Quality Mgmt., Inc., 

B-402247.2, Mar. 9, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 75 at 5; eMind, B-289902, May 8, 2002, 

2002 CPD ¶ 82 at 5 (clarifications are not to be used to cure proposal deficiencies 

or material omissions). Here, the RFP specifically informed offerors that award 

would be made without conducting discussions. RFP at 23.
Page 5 B-407124 

proposal offers comparable sources of information; by placing information in the 

appendix and requiring agency to piece together the proposal's content, the 

protester failed in its responsibility to clearly demonstrate compliance with RFP 

requirements).

In sum, Alares has not shown that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal was 

unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP, and the protester’s disagreement with 

the agency’s judgment does not establish that the agency acted unreasonably. See

Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13, 

Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

The protest is denied. 4

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 4 In its comments, Alares argues for the first time, based on a search of 

USAspending.gov, that Ironclad has insufficient experience as a prime contractor, 

and the protester challenges the awardee’s past performance evaluation in that 

regard. Comments at 3-4. These arguments are untimely. Under our Regulations, 

a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no 

later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the 

basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2) (2012).