United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: 1-A Construction & Fire, LLP 

File: B-404128 

Date: January 7, 2011 

Patricia Maier for the protester. 

Azine Farzami, Esq., Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the agency. 

Lauren I. Grossman, Esq., Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., 

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

DIGEST 

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of protester’s quotation and selection of 

higher-priced, higher technically rated quotation is denied where evaluation and 

selection were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation 

criteria. 

DECISION 

1-A Construction & Fire, LLP, of Hermiston, Oregon, protests the issuance of a task 

order to Hayden Brothers, Inc., of Emmett, Idaho, under request for quotations 

(RFQ) No. AG-04M3-S-10-0047, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, for the construction of reservoirs in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in 

Union County, Oregon. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, which was issued on September 2, 2010 as a set-aside for Historically 

Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses, with a cascading setaside for consideration of other small businesses if no quotes were received from 

HUBZone vendors, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for the 

construction of six ponds/reservoirs located in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

The RFQ provided that the task order was to be issued to the vendor whose 

quotation conforming to the solicitation was determined to be the most 

advantageous to the Government considering three factors: (1) relevant past 

performance; (2) benefit to the local community; and (3) price. RFQ at 24. The RFQ 

established that the relevant past performance and benefit to the local community 

factors, combined, would be approximately equal in weight to price. Id. at 26. 
For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the RFQ instructed vendors to list 

their relevant projects (including contracts or subcontracts “similar in nature and 

complexity to that required by the solicitation”) that were completed during the past 

2 years or that are currently in progress. Id. at 24. With regard to the projects 

identified, vendors were required to provide information regarding, for instance, the 

size, location, quality, and timeliness of the work, the contract administrator’s 

contact information, and, if problems were encountered, what corrective actions 

were taken. Id. Under the benefit to the local community factor, vendors were to 

provide a summary of how they planned to benefit the local (Union County) area, 

“with respect to people working on the project, any rental equipment that will be 

provided from businesses in Union County, housing and meal facilities used, etc.” 

Id. The RFQ advised vendors that their quotations were to include sufficient, 

detailed information for evaluation, and that submissions lacking such information 

would be considered deficient. Id.

The agency received nine quotations by the September 20 closing date for the receipt 

of quotations, including four quotations from HUBZone small businesses. In 

accordance with the cascading set-aside procedures established by the RFQ, only the 

four quotations from HUBZone vendors were considered for selection. Of these four 

quotations, 1-A Construction & Fire’s was the lowest-priced (at $19,950). The 

agency, however, rejected the protester’s quotation. The evaluators found that the 

protester’s quotation identified limited reservoir experience for the firm and 

provided limited information about that experience. The evaluators also found that 

1-A’s limited response under the benefit to the local community factor, which stated 

only that the reservoir project would provide water sources for cows and all other 

wildlife, was insufficient to explain how the firm planned to benefit the local area. 

The agency selected Hayden Brothers for the task order at that firm’s quoted price of 

$42,680. After learning of the agency’s decision, 1-A filed this protest. 

In its protest, 1-A contends, among other things, that the agency unreasonably 

concluded that its quotation was unacceptable under the benefit to the local 

community evaluation factor; 1-A contends it was sufficient for the firm to have 

noted in its quotation that the pond project will provide water for cows and wildlife.1

 

1-A suggests, in its comments submitted in response to the agency’s report on the 

protest, that the pond project’s benefits in providing water to local wildlife will 

 

1

 Given our conclusion, as discussed below, that the agency reasonably evaluated 

1-A’s quotation as unacceptable under the benefit to the local community factor, 

which provided a reasonable basis for the agency to reject 1-A’s quotation, we do not 

need to separately address 1-A’s contentions regarding the agency’s evaluation of its 

quotation under the past performance factor, or its general contention that the 

agency acted unreasonably by issuing the task order to a vendor with a higher price 

than that quoted by 1-A. 

Page 2 B-404128 
ultimately benefit the community, by supporting, among other things, hunters who, 

in turn, will spend money in the county.2 

In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function to 

independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the 

contracting activity. Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 97-1 

CPD ¶ 164 at 6. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and 

applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester's mere disagreement 

with the evaluation does not show it lacked a reasonable basis. Id. On the record 

here, we see no basis to question the evaluation of the protester’s quotation or the 

source selection decision. 

Here, the RFQ specifically instructed vendors to address how they planned to benefit 

the local community in carrying out the project, for example, through local hiring, 

local equipment rentals, and the use of local housing and meal facilities. To the 

extent 1-A generally noted that the reservoir project itself would provide a benefit, 

since it would serve as a water source for cows and wildlife, 1-A’s response was not 

meaningful, since the RFQ clearly required vendors to establish how their own 

planned activities in performance of the project would provide a direct economic 

benefit to the local community. Given 1-A’s failure to adequately address this 

fundamental solicitation requirement, the agency acted reasonably in finding 1-A’s 

 

2

 To the extent the protester argues that the benefit to the local community 

evaluation factor discriminates against 1-A because, according to 1-A, it would lose 

its HubZone status if it hired employees from the local community (which is not a 

HUBZone area), and because the firm has its own equipment (and therefore does not 

need to lease equipment in the local area), these challenges are untimely, since they 

pertain to the terms of the solicitation and, therefore, should have been raised prior 

to the time designated for the receipt of initial quotations. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 

C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2010). Further, while 1-A also contends that the agency’s 

evaluation of its quotation was biased and discriminatory, as reflected by the 

agency’s failure to properly respond to the protester’s repeated requests for 

information regarding the number of vendors who submitted quotations, the 

protester has not adequately supported its contention; contracting officials are 

presumed to act in good faith and we will not attribute bias in the evaluation of 

proposals on the basis of inference or supposition. Advanced Sys. Tech., Inc.; Eng’g 

and Professional Servs., Inc., B-241530, B-241530.2, Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD ¶ 153. 

Page 3 B-404128 
Page 4 B-404128 

quotation unacceptable under the benefit to the local community evaluation factor, 

which provided a reasonable basis for the agency’s rejection of 1-A’s quotation. 

 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel