United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Dorado Services, Inc. 

File: B-402244 

Date: February 19, 2010 

Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for the protester. 

Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Steven J. Koprince, Esq., and Kelly E. Buroker, Esq., Piliero 

Mazza, PLLC, for Nationview/Bhate, JV, LLC, an intervenor. 

Stephen L. Sowell, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. 

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s proposal is denied where record 

supports agency’s evaluation findings. 

DECISION 

Dorado Services, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, protests the award of several contracts 

under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91278-09-R-0062, issued by the Department 

of the Army, Corps of Engineers, as a section 8(a) set-aside for small business 

concerns,1

 for design-build services. Dorado maintains that the agency misevaluated 

its proposal and failed to consider price in connection with its award decisions. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP contemplated the award of multiple, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity 

task order contracts to provide design-build, environmental, construction, repair, 

renewal, and sustained services to the agency’s Mobile, Alabama District military 

customers, and for quick, cost-effective responses to requirements for new 

construction, technology infrastructure upgrades, correction of life-safety 

 

1

 Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes procurements to be set aside for 

socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns. 15 U.S.C. § 637(a) 

(2006). 
deficiencies, and repair of facilities at military installations. RFP at 00100-12. The 

awards were to be made on a “best value” basis considering price and the following 

non-price factors (in descending order of importance): past performance, 

organization, and past safety performance. RFP at 00120-1, 00120-2, 00120-3.2 The 

non-price factors were significantly more important than price. 

The agency received 35 proposals (1 of which was eliminated after an initial review), 

which were evaluated for technical merit. After completing its evaluation, the 

agency made award to 8 offerors whose initial proposals were deemed to offer the 

best value to the government. The evaluation ratings and prices of the awardees and 

the protester were as follows: 

Offeror 

Past 

Performance Organization 

Past Safety 

Performance Price 

SpecPro Outstanding Above Average Outstanding $10,551,068 

Clement Outstanding Above Average Above Average $10,013,329 

DWG Outstanding Above Average Above Average $9,728,276 

Nationview/Bhate Above Average Outstanding Above Average $10,041,427 

Paladin-Hoar Above Average Above Average Outstanding $9,564,846 

S&M and Assocs. Above Average Above Average Above Average $10,046,541 

Carter’s Above Average Above Average Above Average $9,951,424 

Fox2 Above Average Above Average Above Average $9,451,223 

Dorado Above Average Satisfactory Outstanding $8,880,088 

Agency Report (AR), exh. C, at 5. Following a written debriefing, Dorado filed this 

protest. 

Dorado asserts that the agency unreasonably assigned its proposal a rating of 

satisfactory under the organization factor based on a finding of two weaknesses in 

this area. First, the agency found that Dorado’s proposal had only a very general 

discussion of its home office and lines of authority, and that the corporate structure 

of the firm’s organization was not adequately discussed. AR, exh. F, at 3. Second, 

the agency found that the proposal contained a very weak discussion of the firm’s 

capabilities and commitment to provide home office support to its design team and 

on-site construction team in connection with its discussion of the firm’s design-build 

task order process. Id. According to the protester, these weaknesses were 

unwarranted and its proposal merited a rating of at least above average. 

Where a protester challenges an agency’s technical evaluation of its proposal, our 

Office will not independently reevaluate the proposal but, rather, will examine the 

record to determine whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

RFP and applicable statutes and regulations. Building Restoration Corp., B-402000, 

 

2

 The three non-price factors were to be rated outstanding, above average, 

satisfactory, neutral, marginal, or unsatisfactory. RFP at 00120-4, 00120-5. 

Page 2 B-402244 
Dec. 29, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 15 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement with an agency’s 

evaluation does not render it unreasonable. Id.

The evaluation in this area was reasonable. In its original protest, Dorado quoted 

extensively from its proposal to demonstrate that the evaluated weaknesses were 

unfounded. An examination of the entire record shows, however, that the portion of 

the proposal referenced by Dorado did not relate to the RFP requirements under 

which the agency identified the weaknesses. In fact, the weaknesses identified by 

the agency relate to specific RFP requirements, and the record supports the agency’s 

findings. 

With respect to the first weakness--regarding Dorado’s discussion of its home office, 

lines of authority, and corporate structure--the evaluators concluded that Dorado’s 

proposal did not adequately respond to section 3.3.2.2 of the RFP’s proposal 

submission requirements and instructions, which stated as follows: 

3.3.2.2. Home Office Management and Support. Describe the home 

office organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established 

for the contract. State why your construction firm is especially 

qualified to undertake this Contract for new construction and repair 

work. 

RFP at 00110-4. A review of the relevant portion of Dorado’s proposal bears out the 

agency’s criticism. For example, the proposal represents that the project delivery 

teams will be led by “three highly qualified individuals,” but goes on to identify only 

two specific employees. Dorado Proposal, at 3. Also consistent with the evaluators’ 

criticism, the proposal is couched largely in generalities that do not specifically 

address the RFP requirements. For example, the proposal states: 

Our key management staff remains in constant touch with the project 

team, monitoring progress through our project reporting systems, 

providing any required corporate resources and/or support, and also 

making periodic scheduled site visits to ensure that the project is 

progressing to our client’s satisfaction. . . . Dorado’s Home Office 

executive-level personnel will monitor the progress of ongoing work, 

upcoming work, schedules, staffing needs, quality and safety issues, 

subcontractor response and efforts, budget, and the overall project 

management of the . . . contract. 

Dorado Proposal, at 2-3. Similarly, the proposal refers to a “streamlined corporate 

structure,” but does not describe or otherwise explain the nature or attributes of that 

structure. We think the agency reasonably determined that Dorado’s general 

explanation of its management’s role in performance of the contract, with little 

specific information--e.g., with regard to the “project reporting systems” and the 

manner in which home office would “monitor” performance--did not provide the 

Page 3 B-402244 
level of information called for by the RFP. Accordingly, we think the agency’s 

criticisms of the Dorado proposal in this respect were reasonable. 

As for the second criticism--regarding the discussion of the firm’s capabilities and 

commitment to provide home office support to its design team and on-site 

construction team, and the discussion of the firm’s design-build task order process--

the RFP required offerors to designate a sole position within the company that 

would be responsible for both design and construction, and to describe the firm’s 

capabilities and commitment to support the design team and process, as well as the 

on-site management team. RFP §§ 3.3.2.2.6.1 and 3.3.2.2.6.2. Dorado’s proposal 

discusses at length the qualifications and responsibilities of the individual designated 

as its sole point of contact for the contract. Dorado Proposal, at 17-18. However, the 

proposal is silent with respect to the second component of the RFP’s requirements--

it includes no discussion whatsoever of the firm’s capabilities and commitment to 

support its design team and on-site management team. We conclude that the agency 

reasonably determined that the proposal was weak in this regard, and that there thus 

is no basis for questioning this aspect of the evaluation. 

Dorado disagrees with the agency’s findings, and asserts that the missing 

information was included in different sections of its proposal which, as noted, were 

quoted extensively in its initial protest. Our review of the record, however, does not 

support Dorado’s assertion. First, the RFP was specific regarding where certain 

information should be included in a firm’s proposal, and Dorado specifically 

referenced the RFP’s section-by-section instructions in its proposal response, 

thereby leading the agency to conclude that the requested information would 

actually be in the sections of its proposal that referenced the RFP’s instructions. It is 

an offeror’s responsibility to prepare an adequately written proposal for the agency 

to evaluate. NW Sys., B-401352, July 13, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 152 at 3. In any case, the 

agency asserts, and we agree, that the proposal sections referenced by the protester 

in fact do not include the required information. For example, Dorado refers to 

sections 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.4 of its proposal. However, while these sections detail 

Dorado’s prior projects and professional design process, they are silent on the 

capabilities and support that would be provided by the firm’s home office to the 

firm’s design team and on-site management team. We conclude that this argument is 

without merit. 

Dorado asserts that the agency improperly failed to conduct a best value tradeoff 

analysis that included consideration of its low price. Dorado claims that the agency 

instead first ranked proposals according to technical merit, without regard to price, 

and then merely performed a price reasonableness analysis with respect to the most 

highly ranked proposals. However, this aspect of the protest is based on Dorado’s 

reading of a redacted version of the source selection decision document (the 

redacted information was not relevant to Dorado’s protest grounds) and is not 

supported by the record. While Dorado asserts, based on this document, that the 

agency’s alleged failure to consider price “appears implicit,” we find nothing in the 

Page 4 B-402244 
Page 5 B-402244 

 

redacted document representing, or supporting the conclusion, that the agency did 

not consider Dorado’s low price in its award determination. Moreover, our review of 

the unredacted document shows that the agency fully considered price in each of the 

award decisions, specifically comparing each awardee’s price to Dorado’s lower 

price. AR, exh. C, at 16-20.3

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

3

 Dorado also alleges that the agency simply considered proposals with similar or 

identical adjectival ratings to be equivalent, without considering the proposals’ 

technical strengths and weaknesses. In its comments responding to the agency’s 

report, the protester makes no further mention of this assertion. We thus deem it 

abandoned. Accumark, Inc., B-310814, Feb. 13, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 68 at 2 n.1.