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: James Construction 

File: B-402429 

Date: April 21, 2010 

David E. White, Esq., Babst Calland Clements Zomnir, PC, for the protester. 

David F. Innis, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. 

Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Agency reasonably determined that protester’s lower-priced proposal, which 

contained significant weaknesses and risks, was not the best value as compared to 

the awardee’s technically superior, higher-priced proposal. 

DECISION 

James Construction, of Carnegie, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to 

Greenleaf Construction Co., Inc., of Kansas City, Missouri, by the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, under request for proposals (RFP) 

No. W912DQ-10-R-4008 for the repair and modernization of an advanced individual 

training barracks building at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

The RFP was issued on November 14, 2009, as a 100-percent small business 

set-aside.1 The RFP stated that the award would be made on a best-value basis and 

that an award, without discussions, was intended. RFP at 8, 13. The solicitation’s 

four technical factors, listed in descending order of importance--past performance, 

quality of building systems and materials, contract duration and summary schedule, 

and staffing--when combined, were approximately equal to price. RFP at 22-28. 

 

1

 The RFP was funded under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 
The Corps received seven proposals by the closing time for receipt of proposals on 

December 15. Proposals were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board 

(SSEB) that consisted of a technical evaluation team (TET) and a price evaluation 

team (PET). The TET met for 2 days to evaluate technical proposals. Each TET 

member individually evaluated and rated the proposals, and the TET later met as a 

team to discuss the individual ratings and arrive at a consensus rating for each 

evaluation factor listed in the RFP. The PET evaluated the price proposals for 

reasonableness by comparing proposed fixed prices against the independent 

government cost estimate, market value, and construction cost limitations. 

The agency’s SSEB evaluation resulted in the following consensus adjectival ratings 

and prices for James’ and Greenleaf’s proposals, which were presented and accepted 

by the source selection authority (SSA). 

James Greenleaf 

Past performance Acceptable Good 

Quality of building systems 

and materials Marginal Good 

Contract duration and 

summary schedule Acceptable Excellent 

Staffing Acceptable Acceptable 

Price $7,912,000 $8,499,786 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, SSEB Report to SSA, at 9; Id., attach. 1, Pricing 

Schedule Summary, at 1. 

The SSA determined that Greenleaf’s proposal represented the best value to the 

government. In comparing Greenleaf’s proposal to James’, the SSA noted that 

James’ proposal was rated lower than Greenleaf’s proposal under the three most 

important technical factors, and that James’ proposal could not be considered the 

best value, notwithstanding its lower price, because of the “significant technical 

weaknesses” in its proposal. Specifically, the SSA found 

Most significantly, on Factor 2, Quality of Building [Systems] Materials, 

James was rated Marginal while Greenleaf received a Good rating. 

James failed to include required discussions of significant technical 

issues: LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design], ATFP 

[Anti-Terrorism Force Protection] considerations, energy conservation, 

and interoperability. This failure created a high risk that James did not 

understand the requirements of the project and would not successfully 

complete performance at the offered price. 

AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision, at 9. 

Award was made to Greenleaf on December 30. James requested and later received 

a written debriefing on January 11, 2010. James filed this protest on January 15. 

Page 2 B-402429 
DISCUSSION 

James protests the agency’s evaluation and adjectival rating of its proposal under 

each evaluation factor, as well as the source selection decision. 2 James also 

complains that the agency’s consensus ratings did not bear a rational relationship to 

the TEP member’s individual ratings, and the TEP member’s individual rating sheets 

appear to have been altered to justify a lower overall consensus score. 

In reviewing a protest of an alleged improper evaluation, it is not our role to 

reevaluate proposals. Rather, our review is confined to determining whether the 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and 

applicable statutes and regulations. A protester’s mere disagreement with the 

agency’s conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. Further, 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 results 

subject only to the tests of rationality and consistency with the RFP’s evaluation 

factors. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 195 at 3. 

With regard to the past performance factor, James asserts that the agency erred in 

finding that James’ past performance was only acceptable, evidenced no experience 

with military customers, and was limited to relatively small projects. As examples of 

why it believes that the agency incorrectly evaluated James’ past performance as 

acceptable, instead of good or excellent, James references the four past performance 

questionnaires submitted with its proposal. These references, in the protester’s 

view, demonstrate its above-average experience with complex, high-priced projects, 

and reference its prior work with the Corps as evidence of its military experience. 

Consistent with the RFP, the agency evaluated James’ four questionnaires as well as 

seven projects that were listed on the Construction Contract Appraisal Support 

System (CCASS), considering such criteria as the quality of service provided, age of 

the data, and its relevance. While James’ proposal identified four projects that were 

high-priced, complex, and received above average quality ratings, the results of the 

CCASS survey showed much smaller projects, completed with a mix of outstanding 

to unsatisfactory ratings. Most important here, however, is the fact that the agency 

determined that none of projects reviewed was sufficiently relevant to the work 

contemplated by this RFP to justify a higher past performance rating than 

 

2

 In its initial protest, James also alleged that the agency improperly considered 

another offeror’s proposal when evaluating James’ proposal and failed to seek 

clarifications with James regarding weaknesses and deficiencies in its proposal. 

Although the agency report addressed these issues, the protester failed to reply in its 

comments; we therefore regard these protest grounds as abandoned. See Remington 

Arms Co., Inc., B-297374, B-297374.2, Jan. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 32 at 4 n.4. 

Moreover, while we have reviewed each of James’ evaluation challenges, we will 

only provide herein a discussion of the most relevant. 

Page 3 B-402429 
acceptable. In this regard, James’ proposal included projects involving 

[REDACTED]. None of these projects, nor those identified by the CCASS, were for 

military or commercial housing. Moreover, James’ experience with military 

customer work bore little similarity to the barracks construction being awarded in 

this procurement. Thus, notwithstanding James’ disagreement, we find that the 

agency’s rating of James’ past performance as acceptable was reasonable and 

consistent with the solicitation. 

James also challenges the agency’s marginal rating for its proposal under the quality 

of building systems and materials evaluation factor, arguing instead that its proposal 

met all of the requirements for an acceptable rating. With regard to this factor, the 

RFP specified that, “[i]t is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that all aspects 

identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed.” RFP at 23-24. Nine 

criteria for this factor were listed: (1) architectural finishes, (2) mechanical systems, 

(3) plumbing systems, (4) electrical systems, (5) ATFP considerations, (6) energy 

conservation, (7) achievement of the LEED Silver requirement, (8) interoperability, 

and (9) site utilities and site systems. RFP at 24. Each criterion included a 

description of what needed to be addressed by the offeror. 

The agency rated James’ proposal as marginal under quality of building systems and 

materials factor because the proposal did not include information addressing four of 

the nine criteria for this factor: [REDACTED]. 

James responds that, contrary to the agency’s conclusion, it fully understood these 

requirements and its proposal addressed these criteria. James argues that it 

demonstrated its understanding of [REDACTED] when it submitted pre-offer 

questions on this topic to the agency during the question and answer period and by 

referring to [REDACTED] in its proposal.3 Protest at 6. James asserts that it 

addressed [REDACTED] by stating elsewhere in its proposal that, [REDACTED]. Id.; 

see AR, Tab 7, James’ Technical Proposal, at page I-33-34. For [REDACTED], James 

argues that its proposal provided resumes of a project team that are [REDACTED]. 

Protest at 5. Finally, James states that it addressed [REDACTED] in its pre-offer 

questions and its proposal elsewhere stated, [REDACTED]. Protest at 6; see AR, Tab 

7, James’ Technical Proposal, at page I-33. 

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the agency reasonably 

determined that James’ proposal did not provide the information required by the 

solicitation for these four criteria of the quality of building systems and materials 

factor. It is an offeror’s responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal in 

order to establish that what it proposes will meet the government’s needs; an offeror 

 

3

 James’ sent a series of pre-offer questions to the agency from November 20 to 

December 8. Protest, attach. B, at 1-4. These questions were not included as part of 

James’ proposal and were therefore not considered by the agency in the evaluation. 

Page 4 B-402429 
runs the risk of having its proposal downgraded or rejected if the proposal is 

inadequately written. Herndon Sci. and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 9, 1992, 

92-1 CPD ¶ 46 at 4. Although, as James contends, James’ proposal contained general 

references in various parts of the proposal to facts that could constitute elements of 

the information required by the criteria, the agency was not required to piece 

together disparate parts of the James’ proposal to determine its intent. Interaction 

Research Inst., Inc., B-234141.7, June 30, 1989, 89-2 CPD ¶ 15. Moreover, the agency 

properly did not consider James’ pre-offer statements that were not included in its 

proposal. In this regard, an agency is not required to infer information that the 

protester elected not to provide in its proposal. Abacus Enters., B-248969, Oct. 13, 

1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 242 at 4. Since offerors are expected to respond explicitly to RFP 

requirements, the protester acted at its own peril when it chose not to submit the 

requested data with its proposal. Id. Based on our review, we find the agency’s 

marginal rating for this factor was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.4 

James also complains that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal because 

the agency’s consensus ratings did not bear a rational relationship to the TEP 

member’s individual ratings, and that the individual rating sheets appear to have 

been altered to justify a lower overall consensus score. 

The ratings for James’ proposal of the individual TEP members, and the TEP 

consensus rating, are set forth below as they appear in the record: 

Evaluator #1 Evaluator #2 Evaluator #3 Consensus 

Past Performance 

Good / 

Acceptable Good Good Acceptable 

Quality of building 

systems and 

material 

Good / 

Acceptable5

Marginal Acceptable 

Acceptable

Marginal Marginal 

Contract duration 

and summary 

schedule 

Good

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Staffing Acceptable Acceptable 

Good

Acceptable Acceptable 

AR, Tab 11, Individual Rating Sheets; AR, Tab 13, SSEB Report to SSA, at 9. 

 

4

 We have also reviewed James’s contentions regarding the evaluation of the two 

lowest weighted factors and found the evaluation of these factors was reasonable 

and consistent with the solicitation. 

5

 Text that has been struck through represents a change in individual rater’s score as 

reflected on the individual rating sheets. 

Page 5 B-402429 
As an initial matter, we find no support in the record for James’ claims that the 

individual rating sheets may have been altered in order for James to have a lower 

overall consensus score. In this regard, the agency provided detailed statements 

from the TEP members and chairman, which are consistent with the 

contemporaneous documentation, explaining the reasons for the changes in the 

ratings, and how and why the TEP determined the consensus ratings. 

With respect to the allegation that there is a discrepancy between the initial and 

consensus ratings, it is not unusual for individual evaluator ratings to differ 

significantly from one another, or from the consensus ratings eventually assigned. In 

this regard, such ratings properly may be determined after discussions among the 

evaluators, which is what occurred and was adequately documented here. Joint 

Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229, B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 4; I.S. 

Grupe, Inc., B-278839, Mar. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 86 at 5-6. The overriding concern 

for our purpose is not whether the final ratings are consistent with earlier, individual 

ratings but, again, whether they reasonably reflect the relative merits of the 

proposals. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., supra, at 2 n.1. Based on our review, we 

see nothing unreasonable about the changes between the initial ratings assigned, and 

the final consensus evaluation ratings. 

With regard to past performance, the agency explained that, even though the initial 

individual ratings displayed two good ratings and an acceptable rating, the 

consensus of the panel was that James’ proposal should be rated acceptable after 

considering the relevance of the projects reflected in James’ performance 

questionnaires and the CCASS evaluations. For the reasons stated above, we 

conclude that the acceptable past performance rating reasonably reflects the relative 

merits of James’ past performance. 

Similarly, with regard to the quality of building systems and materials evaluation 

factor, the individual evaluators initially scored James’ proposal with two acceptable 

ratings and one acceptable/marginal rating, but the consensus rating was marginal. 

Again, during the consensus discussions the evaluators noted that James’ proposal 

did not satisfy four of the nine criteria in the RFP. Thus, the consensus of the panel 

was that a marginal rating reasonably reflected the merits of James’ proposal. As 

discussed above, we see nothing unreasonable about this rating. 

James finally argues that the SSA failed to perform a proper best value trade-off, 

since its proposal, if properly evaluated, would have received similar ratings to 

Greenleaf’s and the SSA would not be able to then justify the award based on the 

higher-priced proposal. This contention has no merit since we find the agency’s 

evaluation of the non-price factors was reasonable for the reasons stated above. 

Moreover, as indicated above, the SSA’s source selection decision was reasonably 

Page 6 B-402429 
Page 7 B-402429 

based upon the factors established by the solicitation and the SSA’s integrated 

assessment and comparison of the proposals’ strengths, weaknesses, and risks. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel