Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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: Goel Services, Inc. in association with Grunley Construction Co., Inc. 

File: B-404168 

Date: January 12, 2011 

Paul V. Waters, Esq., and Erin A. Behbehani, Esq., The Waters Law Firm, PLLC, for 

the protester. 

Andrew Bramnick, Esq., Lisa Marie Golden, Esq., Department of Defense, for the 

agency. 

Richard P. Burkard, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office 

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

DIGEST 

1. Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s technical proposal is denied where 

agency’s evaluation is reasonable and supported by the record. 

2. Under solicitation providing for the award of a fixed-price contract, protest that 

agency impermissibly evaluated protester’s low price as creating performance risk is 

denied, where solicitation sought specific cost and price information and the 

solicitation, under the technical factor, advised that the offeror’s understanding of 

the work and proposed cost effectiveness would be evaluated. 

DECISION 

Goel Services in association with Grunley Construction Co., Inc. (Goel/Grunley), 

of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Beltsville Industries 

Group, Inc. (BIG), of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. HQ0034-10-R-0097, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the cleaning 

and repair of exterior limestone facades of the Pentagon. Goel/Grunley protests the 

agency’s evaluation of its price and technical proposals. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to clean and repair two 

exterior limestone facades at the Pentagon (identified in the solicitation as facades 

“E” and “F”), and repair weathered and deteriorated masonry joints. RFP at 3; 
RFP, Statement of Work, at 50. The work to be performed included, but was not 

limited, to the following: 

Repair all surface cracks/fissures, chipped surfaces . . . . Remove and 

repair all weathered and deteriorated mortar from masonry/stone 

joints including all sides of columns, porticos, stairs, stairway walls, 

abutments, cornices . . . . Replace all deteriorating or failing expansion 

joints as required. . . . Repair and replace all coping stone and lead 

coated copper flashing as required. . . . Repair all failing existing 

patches. . . . Correct all misaligned stones. . . . [and] Abate and safely 

remove any asbestos or other hazardous materials. 

RFP, Statement of Work, at 50-511 (emphasis in original). The work required by this 

RFP represented the third phase of the cleaning and repair effort; BIG was the 

incumbent contractor for the second phase. Because the Pentagon has been 

designated as a historical landmark and the facades are a historical element of the 

Pentagon, the RFP stated that it was important to preserve “the historic intent of the 

exterior make up to the greatest extent possible.” Id. at 50. The work was required 

to be completed in 100 calendar days. Id.

 

The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal 

represented the best value to the Government. RFP at 35. The solicitation identified 

three evaluation factors: technical, past performance, and cost/price. Id. The 

technical factor in turn consisted of two equally weighted subfactors: management 

approach and technical approach. Id. The RFP stated that the technical and past 

performance factors were of equal importance and that the cost/price factor was 

slightly less important than the other two factors. Id. 

With respect to the management approach subfactor, the RFP stated that the agency 

would evaluate, among other things, the offeror’s proposed project organization, key 

personnel, and major subcontractors. Id. With respect to the technical approach 

subfactor, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate “the offeror’s technical 

understanding of the work,” its ability to provide the requirements, and its ability to 

meet the schedule; offerors were also to demonstrate the efficiency and cost 

effectiveness of their proposed approaches. Id. at 31, 36. 

With respect to the cost/price factor, the RFP provided that price proposals would be 

evaluated for reasonableness using one or more of the price analysis techniques in 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.404-1(b). Id. at 37. The RFP also required 

that offerors provide all direct and indirect costs in separate price proposal 

summaries for facades E and F, to include design, labor, materials, equipment, 

bonding, overhead, and profit. Id. at 32-33. The RFP required further that offerors 

 

1

 Page numbers refer to the BATES numbers in the Agency Report (AR). 

Page 2 B-404168 
provide “all necessary supporting documentation for cost breakdown of design, 

labor, materials, and equipment.” Id. at 33. Finally, the RFP “encouraged” offerors 

“to submit any other price or financial information that may be helpful in the 

understanding and evaluation of the Price Proposal.” Id. at 32. 

Three offerors, including Goel/Grunley and BIG, submitted proposals. A technical 

evaluation team (TET) evaluated offerors’ proposals under the technical subfactors 

and assigned adjectival ratings of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or 

unacceptable. (An overall rating for the technical factor was not assigned.) The 

contract specialist evaluated past performance and assigned confidence ratings of 

substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, or unknown confidence. 

With regard to the evaluation of Goel/Grunley’s proposal, the TET rated the proposal 

acceptable for the management approach subfactor and good for the technical 

approach subfactor. AR, Tab 9, Technical Evaluation Summary, at 315-16. The 

contract specialist assigned a rating of satisfactory confidence to the proposal for 

the past performance factor. AR, Tab 11, Past Performance Evaluation Summary, at 

331. Concerning price, Goel/Grunley initially did not include the required cost 

breakdown or supporting documentation in its proposal, but instead included only a 

lump sum amount per facade. In response to requests from DOD, Goel/Grunley 

subsequently provided cost breakdown information. The agency evaluated this 

information and determined that labor and other costs were “very low” compared to 

the government estimate.2 AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 376. 

Goel/Grunley’s total proposed price for both facades of [deleted] was lower than the 

government estimate of [deleted] and the other offerors’ prices,3

 and was found to 

pose a “potential risk of failure because of the low cost of labor.” Id. at 377-78; 

Tab 11, Price Evaluation Summary, at 360. 

In contrast, BIG’s proposal received the highest ratings of all offers received and was 

found to be superior to Goel/Grunley’s proposal under both technical subfactors and 

the past performance factor. In this regard, BIG’s proposal received ratings of good 

under the management approach subfactor, outstanding under the technical 

approach subfactor, and substantial confidence under the past performance factor. 

AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 377. The agency noted that the risk to 

performance was minimal given that BIG had successfully performed similar repair 

work as the incumbent contractor. Id. at 378. The total proposed price for BIG’s 

 

2

 The contracting officer noted, during the evaluation, that confidence in the 

government estimate was “very high” due to the agency’s experience with the 

previous two phases of the limestone cleaning and repair project. AR, Tab 13, 

Source Selection Decision, at 378. 

3

 The other offerors’ prices were [deleted] than the government estimate. AR, 

Tab 11, Price Evaluation Summary, at 360. 

Page 3 B-404168 
proposal of $3,078,504 was [deleted] the government estimate and was found to be 

reasonable. AR, Tab 11, Price Evaluation Summary, at 360; Tab 13, Source Selection 

Decision, at 377-78. 

In the source selection decision, the contracting officer (who was the source 

selection authority) determined that 

BIG’s substantial technical superiority/advantages and its reasonable 

price . . . when compared to the risks associated with [Goel/Grunley’s] 

unreasonably low price and lower technical and past performance 

ratings, makes award to BIG the best value for the Government. 

AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 379. The agency awarded the contract to 

BIG, and this protest followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Technical Evaluation 

The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under each 

subfactor of the technical factor. It contends that the proposal ratings were too low 

because the weaknesses identified by the agency were “based upon incorrect 

statements of fact.” Comments at 24. We have carefully reviewed and considered 

each allegation and argument and find them to be without merit. We specifically 

address the central allegations below.4

In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, we examine the 

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

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Metro 

Mach. Corp., B-402567, B-402567.2, June 3, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 132 at 13. A protester’s 

mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation does not render the evaluation 

unreasonable. Id.

 

4

 Goel/Grunley also initially protested the reasonableness of the past performance 

rating assigned to its proposal. The agency fully responded to the protest arguments 

in its agency report. In its comments, the protester failed to respond to the agency’s 

detailed report on this issue other than to assert generally that “[t]here is no 

reasonable basis for the Agency’s ratings for the . . . Past Performance factors” and 

that Goel/Grunley’s past performance was similar to BIG’s. Comments at 24. We 

have reviewed the record and find that it establishes the reasonableness of the 

evaluation ratings and supports the agency’s determination that BIG’s past 

performance was superior to Goel/Grunley’s. 

Page 4 B-404168 
Under the first technical subfactor, management approach, the agency assigned a 

rating of acceptable to Goel/Grunley’s proposal, finding three weaknesses. First, the 

agency found that the “limits of responsibility” for Goel/Grunley’s subcontractors 

were unclear in the proposal and there was no indication that Goel/Grunley had 

worked with its primary subcontractors on previous projects. Second, the agency 

noted that Goel/Grunley’s proposal did not include a plan to recruit, hire, and retain 

qualified personnel, but merely stated that the firm had sufficient personnel. Third, 

the agency determined that Goel/Grunley’s proposed [deleted] lacked previous 

experience with work similar to limestone cleaning/repairs, and Goel/Grunley’s 

proposed [deleted] had less than 1 year of experience. AR, Tab 9, Technical 

Evaluation Summary, at 315. Goel/Grunley asserts that its proposal adequately 

addressed each of these concerns. 

Although the RFP established page limits for technical factor responses, RFP at 29, 

the RFP nonetheless required that certain specific information be addressed within 

those pages. For example, the RFP specifically provided that offerors must “clearly 

identify the limit of responsibility for subcontractors” and indicate “to what extent 

your firm has worked with the proposed subcontractors in the past.” RFP at 30. In 

its proposal, Goel/Grunley identified [deleted] as a firm that would perform design 

work, and [deleted] as a “key subcontractor” that would perform repair work. AR, 

Tab 6, Goel/Grunley’s Proposal, at 257, 261. In response to discussion questions 

seeking clarification of the subcontractor’s role, Goel/Grunley generally stated (in a 

2-sentence response) that [deleted] would “supply[] the necessary labor, materials 

and equipment to complete the scope of work” and that the subcontractor would be 

directly supervised by Goel/Grunley’s project team. AR, Tab 7, Discussion 

Responses, at 293. When asked to clarify [deleted] authority, Goel/Grunley 

summarily explained (in a 3-sentence response) that [deleted] contract for design 

would be held by Goel/Grunley, and that Grunley’s vice president would have direct 

authority over the [deleted] design team. Id. at 294. Nowhere in its proposal or 

subsequent responses did Goel/Grunley describe the extent to which it had worked 

with these firms in the past. Given that Goel/Grunley’s proposal contained only 

general statements that did not fully address the RFP requirements, we find that it 

was reasonable for the agency to assess a weakness to the proposal. 

The RFP also required offerors to “[d]iscuss your plan to recruit, hire and retain 

qualified personnel to meet the requirements of this acquisition” in a section of the 

proposal titled “Management Control Plan.” RFP at 30. In a different section of the 

proposal titled “Risk Mitigation,” Goel/Grunley included the following general 

statement: 

[deleted] 

AR, Tab 6, Goel/Grunley’s Proposal, at 255. Neither this statement nor any other 

statement or section of the proposal addressed a plan to recruit, hire, or retain 

Page 5 B-404168 
qualified personnel, as required by the RFP. Thus, we find that the agency 

reasonably considered this aspect of the proposal to be a weakness. 

The RFP also required offerors to submit resumes for the proposed project manager, 

safety officer, and other key personnel. RFP at 30. These resumes were to address, 

among other things, the key personnel’s experience and qualifications, current job 

title, and proposed position, thereby putting offerors on notice that the agency would 

evaluate this information. See RFP at 31. The resume of Goel/Grunley’s [deleted] 

shows over 5 years of general construction experience as a [deleted], but as the 

agency correctly notes, none of these projects involved limestone repair work on a 

historic building like the work required here. See AR, Tab 6, Goel/Grunley’s 

Proposal, at 231-36. Likewise, the resume of Goel/Grunley’s [deleted] shows over 

15 years of construction experience as a [deleted], including experience with 

asbestos abatement and quality control. However, the [deleted] resume shows that 

he had less than 1 year of experience as a [deleted], where he was responsible for 

overseeing [deleted]. Id. at 245-47. Although the protester contends that the agency 

should not have assessed its proposal a weakness for the key personnel’s lack of 

experience, based on our review of the record, the agency’s concerns appear to be 

reasonable and supported by the record. 

The protester next objects to the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under the 

second technical subfactor, technical approach. As noted above, the agency 

assigned Goel/Grunley’s proposal a rating of good for this subfactor. AR, Tab 9, 

Technical Evaluation Summary, at 316. The agency found that Goel/Grunley’s 

“[deleted] for performing the limestone repair is not the most efficient method [of 

performance] as it does not lend itself well for temperatures in all seasons.” Id.

at 315. The evaluators were concerned that the proposed [deleted] could delay the 

schedule in the cold winter months because some of the materials are temperature 

sensitive. See id.; Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 370. 

Goel/Grunley contends that this weakness is unwarranted, arguing that the proposal 

adequately accounted for potential delays. Comments at 23-24. We disagree. 

The proposal makes clear that the firm intends to perform the work on each facade 

[deleted]. AR, Tab 6, Goel/Grunley’s Proposal, at 258. Although Goal/Grunley 

clarified during discussions that some work would [deleted], it reiterated its intent to 

perform [deleted]. AR, Tab 7, Discussion Responses, at 294. The firm stated that it 

would [deleted], id., and that it would account for weather delays in [deleted]. AR, 

Tab 6, Goel/Grunley’s Proposal, at 255. However, these statements did not satisfy 

the agency’s concern that the [deleted] was not the most efficient way to accomplish 

the work in the cold winter months. Based on our review of the record, we find that 

the agency’s concerns reflect an accurate understanding of the Goel/Grunley’s 

proposal and that the weakness assessed to the proposal was reasonable. 

Page 6 B-404168 
Price Evaluation 

Goel/Grunley next argues that the agency acted improperly by evaluating its 

proposal for price realism, asserting that the agency evaluated its proposal on the 

basis of an unstated evaluation factor. The protester argues that, in a fixed-priced 

environment, the submission of a low price is not improper so the agency’s concerns 

about a too-low price are unreasonable. Furthermore, even if a realism analysis 

were proper, the protester contends that the agency’s analysis was flawed here.5

 

Comments at 15-22. 

The agency responds that its analysis was permitted because the RFP required 

detailed cost and pricing information, and offerors were advised that their 

understanding of the work would be evaluated elsewhere in the solicitation. AR 

at 12-13. 

Before awarding a fixed-price contract, an agency is required to determine whether 

the price offered is fair and reasonable. FAR § 15.402(a). An agency’s concern in 

making this determination in a fixed-price environment is primarily whether the 

offered prices are too high, as opposed to too low, because it is the contractor and 

not the government that bears the risk that an offeror’s low price will not be 

adequate to meet the costs of performance. Sterling Servs., Inc., B-291625, B-291626, 

Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 26 at 3. An agency may, in its discretion, provide for a 

price realism analysis for the purpose of assessing whether an offeror’s price is so 

low as to evince a lack of understanding of the contract requirements or for 

assessing risk inherent in an offeror’s approach. METAG Insaat Ticaret A.S., 

B-401844, Dec. 4, 2009, 2010 CPD ¶ 86 at 6. However, offerors competing for award 

of a fixed-price contract must be given reasonable notice that a business decision to 

submit a low-priced proposal will be considered as reflecting on their understanding 

or risk associated with their proposal. Milani Constr., Inc., B-401942, Dec. 22, 2009, 

2010 CPD ¶ 87 at 4; CSE Constr., B-291268.2, Dec. 16, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 207 at 4-5. 

Where a solicitation for a fixed-price contract omits a provision for realism but 

requests detailed cost or pricing information, we have found that an agency may 

properly consider whether an unreasonably low price poses proposal risk if the 

solicitation, in either the technical or price factors, provides for the evaluation of an 

offeror’s understanding of the requirements. METAG Insaat Ticaret A.S., supra; 

SEEMA, Inc., B-277988, Dec. 18, 1997, 98-1 CPD ¶ 12 at 5. Conversely, where the 

solicitation lacks either a technical or price evaluation factor that provides for the 

offerors’ understanding of the requirements, and the solicitation also does not 

require detailed cost or pricing information, then the agency may not consider 

whether unreasonably low prices pose proposal risk. Milani Constr., Inc., supra.; 

CSE Constr., supra. 

 

5

 The protester also asserts that the agency did not give sufficient weight to price in 

the evaluation. The record does not support this contention. 

Page 7 B-404168 
As noted above, the RFP here asked for (and the agency repeatedly requested during 

discussions) direct and indirect cost information to be separately provided for each 

facade for the following categories: design, labor, materials, equipment, bonding, 

overhead, and profit. RFP at 32-33. The RFP also required offerors to “provide all 

necessary supporting documentation for cost breakdown of design, labor, materials 

and equipment,” and it encouraged offerors to provide “any other price or financial 

information that may be helpful in the understanding and evaluation of the Price 

Proposal.” Id. Furthermore, the RFP contained an evaluation factor, technical, that 

required the evaluation of the offeror’s “understanding of the work,” and offerors 

were informed that their proposals had to “[d]emonstrate the efficiency and cost 

effectiveness of [their proposed] approach.” Id. at 31, 36. Based on this record, we 

conclude that the RFP provided adequate notice to the offerors that their low prices 

could be considered as reflecting on their understanding or risk associated with their 

proposals. See METAG Insaat Ticaret A.S., supra. 

We also find the agency’s price evaluation to be reasonable. As noted in the source 

selection decision, Goel/Grunley’s labor costs, overhead, and profit were “very low” 

as compared to the government estimate.6 AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, 

at 376. In this regard, Goel/Grunley proposed approximately [deleted] fewer labor 

hours and its overall price was approximately [deleted] percent lower than the 

government estimate; Goel/Grunley’s overall proposed price was also found to be 

outside the competitive range. Id. at 376, 378. Based on the information requested in 

the RFP and included in Goel/Grunley’s price proposal, the agency concluded that 

the low price presented a “potential risk of failure” and increased the probability that 

the work would not be completed on time. Id. at 378. We find nothing improper in 

this aspect of the agency’s evaluation. 

In sum, the protester’s arguments do not call into question the reasonableness of the 

agency’s best value determination. Based on our review of the record, and after 

 

6

 As noted above, the agency had “very high” confidence in its government estimate, 

given its past experience. AR, Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 378. 

Goel/Grunley asserts there are differences between its proposal and the government 

estimate that render the price evaluation unreasonable. Comments at 20-21; Reply to 

Supplemental Agency Report, at 6-8. We have reviewed the record and find that the 

protester’s arguments provide no basis to sustain the protest. 

Page 8 B-404168 
Page 9 B-404168 

 

considering all of the protester’s arguments, we find that the agency’s selection of a 

higher-rated, higher-price proposal for award was consistent with the evaluation 

criteria and was reasonable.7 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel 

7

 The protester alleges that the chair of the source selection evaluation board was 

biased in favor of BIG, and that he gave “[g]reater weight” to BIG’s proposal because 

BIG is the incumbent contractor. Comments at 24. According to the protester, there 

is an “inherent conflict of interest” with this individual evaluating BIG’s proposal 

because he was a project manager during the second phase of the work. Id. 

However, the agency represents that the individual certified that neither he nor his 

family have any financial or other ties to BIG that could constitute a conflict of 

interest, Supplemental Agency Report at 15, and the protester has not provided any 

evidence to establish the existence of a conflict or bias in the evaluation. We will not 

attribute bias in the evaluation of proposals on the basis of inference or supposition. 

Novell Pharm., Inc., B-255374, Feb. 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 149 at 7. This protest 

ground is denied.