United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Adelaide Environmental Health Associates, Inc. 

File: B-404164 

Date: January 13, 2011 

Stephanie A. Soter and John W. Soter, Adelaide Environmental Health Associates, 

Inc., for the protester. 

Tony A. Ross, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. 

Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest is denied where agency reasonably downgraded protester’s quotation for 

failing to provide sufficient detail regarding its proposed management approach and 

schedule. 

DECISION 

Adelaide Environmental Health Associates, Inc., of Brewster, New York, protests the 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) issuance of a task order to Aerosol Monitoring 

and Analysis, Inc., of Hanover, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA245-10-RQ-0241, for a comprehensive asbestos survey at selected VA medical centers 

in the VA Capital Health Care Network. Adelaide challenges the evaluation of its 

quotation. 

We deny the protest. 

The solicitation, issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 8.4, 

was open to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) contracts under 

special item number 899-1 (Environmental Consulting Services). The RFQ 

contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order to conduct a comprehensive 

survey of VA medical centers in Maryland, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C. for 

the presence of friable and non-friable asbestos-containing materials. The required 

work was to be completed within 180 days of issuance of the task order. RFQ 

amend. 3, at 5. 
The solicitation provided a detailed scope of work including, among other specific 

tasks: review of building records, past removal actions, inspection reports, 

maintenance records, and other relevant documents; an asbestos assessment of 

accessible building space and identification of the types, locations, and quantities of 

asbestos; collection of bulk samples of suspect material for laboratory analysis; and 

preparation of a survey report for each medical center. RFQ at 5-17. 

The RFQ provided for quotations to be evaluated on a “best value” basis, considering 

technical factors (including corporate experience, personnel qualifications, and 

management approach), past performance, and price. Id. at 31. The technical and 

past performance factors were more important than price. Id.

Under the solicitation schedule, vendors were required to provide a price and a 

delivery date for each of five solicitation line items, each representing a different VA 

medical center, as well as a discount factor in the event that all line items were 

ordered. In addition, under the corporate experience subfactor, vendors were 

required to demonstrate experience with work similar in size and scope, including 

providing information (type and size of facilities audited and the services provided) 

regarding surveys performed during the last 5 years. Under the personnel 

qualifications subfactor, vendors were required to provide information on relevant 

work experience and educational background of proposed staff. Under the 

management approach subfactor, vendors were required, at a minimum, to furnish a 

management plan which showed an understanding of the tasks to be performed and 

included a schedule for the required services. Under the past performance 

evaluation factor, vendors were required to provide a minimum of three past 

performance references for work similar in cost and technical scope. Id. at 3.

Eight vendors submitted quotations in response to the RFQ. The agency’s technical 

evaluation panel identified eight strengths and no weaknesses in Aerosol’s quotation, 

and a single strength and four weaknesses in Adelaide’s quotation. Agency Report 

(AR), Tab D2, Technical Evaluation Panel Recommendation of Award at 2-3. 

Although Aerosol’s price ($268,375) was higher than Adelaide’s ($213,000), the 

superiority of Aerosol’s quotation under the more important non-price factors led the 

agency to determine that Aerosol’s quotation represented the best value. Tab D2, 

Technical Evaluation Panel Recommendation of Award at 2; AR at 2. Upon learning 

of the resulting issuance of a task order to Aerosol, and after receiving a debriefing, 

Adelaide filed this protest with our Office. 

The agency advised Adelaide in its debriefing that, while its corporate experience 

was a strength, its technical proposal did not provide sufficient details regarding its 

management approach, did not include a proposed schedule, and did not provide an 

adequate staffing plan. Adelaide challenges the evaluation in this regard. 

Our Office reviews challenges to an agency’s technical evaluation to determine 

whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation’s evaluation 

criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Integrate, Inc., 

Page 2 B-404164 
B-296526, Aug. 4, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 154 at 3. Here, we find that the technical 

evaluation was reasonable. 

Adelaide has furnished no basis to question the agency’s determination that its 

management plan lacked adequate detail to evaluate the likelihood of successful 

performance. In this regard, the RFQ provided as follows: 

Management Approach: At a minimum, the offeror should develop a 

plan showing an understanding of the tasks to be covered and the 

schedule for the required services. The plan should show how the 

work will be managed to ensure the success of the contract from a 

professional, cost and time perspective and should include a staff plan 

that among other items shows availability of staff and subcontractors 

to complete multi-tasked jobs. 

RFQ at 3. 

Adelaide notes that in describing its corporate experience, it listed in its proposal the 

various tasks performed under four prior VA contracts for asbestos surveys. The 

solicitation here, however, required vendors to furnish a “plan . . . show[ing] how the 

work will be managed to ensure the success of the contract.” Id. Simply listing tasks 

completed under prior contracts does not describe a plan for successful 

performance. Likewise, while Adelaide points to a flow chart in its proposal 

identifying the stages in the required work--“Need Identified and Project Manager 

Assigned”; “Work Request Received by Environmental Consultant”; “Brewster 

Office”; “Team/Client Pre-job Briefing and Planning”; “Data Gathered Analyzed”; 

“Detailed Reporting”--we find reasonable the agency’s position that simply 

identifying a few general stages in the work, without including any narrative 

describing each stage, did not furnish an adequate basis for the agency to evaluate its 

management approach. Further, while Adelaide furnished a generic Quality 

Assurance and Quality Control Manual, the agency reasonably determined that the 

manual did not constitute a detailed, overall management approach to performing 

the specific required work under this solicitation. Furthermore, while Adelaide 

entered in the solicitation schedule a completion date for each VA facility, we 

disagree with the protester that this shows the agency was unreasonable in 

downgrading its proposal for lack of a performance schedule. Rather, we find 

reasonable the agency’s position that an overall completion date for each VA facility 

is not the sort of detailed, task-by-task schedule that was to be furnished under the 

management approach subfactor and which was necessary in order to evaluate the 

vendor’s likelihood of successful, timely performance. 

Regarding the staffing plan, Adelaide notes that it identified in its proposal its 

president/contract administrator, senior vice president/program manager, director of 

technical and field operations/field supervisor, and an industrial hygienist. Adelaide 

Proposal at 9-13. In contrast, however, the awardee identified in its proposal its 

proposed project manager, assistant project manager, quality manager, a number of 

Page 3 B-404164 
Page 4 B-404164 

lead industrial hygienists, and a number of industrial hygienists. Furthermore, the 

awardee also indicated in its proposal its staffing approach for each stage of 

performance. Aerosol Proposal at 2-3, 7, 14-22. In these circumstances, we conclude 

that the agency reasonably viewed the protester’s staffing approach as less detailed, 

and less likely to result in successful performance than the awardee’s. 

Having considered all of Adelaide’s challenges to the evaluation, we find that none 

furnish a basis for questioning the issuance of a task order to Aerosol. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel