United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Obayashi-JPS JV 

File: B-407792

Date: January 29, 2013

Koho Kawanami, Obayashi-JPS JV, for the protester.

Thomas Warren, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

Eric M. Ransom, 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 the awardee’s experience is denied 

where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms 

of the solicitation, reasonable, and supported by the record.

DECISION

Obayashi-JPS JV, of Tokyo, Japan, protests the award of a contract to Tokyu 

Construction Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, by the Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912HV-12-R-0005, for the 

construction of a hydrant fuel system at Misawa Air Base, Japan. Obayashi

challenges the agency’s evaluation of Tokyu’s proposal. 

We deny the protest. 

The Army issued the RFP on May 15, 2012, providing for the award of a fixed-price 

contract to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced technically-acceptable proposal. 

RFP at 33. The RFP contained four non-price factors to be evaluated on an 

acceptable/unacceptable basis: (1) past experience; (2) key personnel; 

(3) qualifications of subcontractors; and (4) past performance. Id. at 33-37. As

relevant, under the past experience factor the RFP advised as follows: 
Page 2 B-407792 

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has completed 

at least one (1) construction project with all of the following 

characteristics (combined).

● Value greater than ¥1,500,000,000,

● Completed within ten (10) years from the date this 

 solicitation was issued.

● Offeror was the prime contractor or was a 

 subcontractor which completed a large percentage 

 (50% or more) of the work, 

● Work consisted of construction of a military or 

civilian Hydrant Fueling System, or Petroleum, Oil, 

and Lubricants (POL) Facilities. 

Id. at 33. 

Three offerors, including Obayashi and Tokyu, submitted proposals prior to the RFP 

closing date. Following an initial evaluation, all three offerors were considered 

technically unacceptable. The agency then conducted discussions with the offerors, 

and obtained revised proposals. On evaluation of the revised proposals, the 

agency determined that Obayashi’s and Tokyu’s proposals were technically 

acceptable, while the third offeror’s proposal remained technically unacceptable. 

Turning to the price proposals, the agency found that Obayashi’s price was

¥3,080,000,000, while Tokyu’s price was ¥2,590,000,000. Contracting Officer 

Statement at 7. 

On September 22, 2012, the agency made award to Tokyu--the technically 

acceptable offeror with the lowest price. Upon learning of the award decision, 

Obayashi filed a timely agency-level protest. The agency denied the protest on 

November 9. Obayashi then filed its protest with our Office on November 16. 

Obayashi alleges that Tokyu’s proposal should have been found unacceptable 

under the past experience factor. According to Obayashi, the agency improperly 

gave Tokyu credit for its referenced experience relating to the “P-998 Wharf 

Upgrade” project. Obayashi explains that it was a prospective bidder for the P-998 

Wharf Upgrade, and based on its familiarity with the project, argues that the project 

included construction of only a part of a POL facility and was far smaller than the 

scope and magnitude of the construction of the hydrant fuel system required by the 

RFP here. The agency, however, argues that the information provided by Tokyu’s 

revised proposal, as well as additional information obtained by the agency 

confirming the scope of Tokyu’s experience, established that Tokyu met the 

minimum experience requirements. We agree with the agency. 
Page 3 B-407792 

The evaluation of an offeror’s experience, by its very nature, is subjective; we will 

not substitute our judgment for reasonably based evaluation ratings, and an 

offeror’s mere disagreement with an agency’s evaluation judgments does not 

demonstrate that those judgments are unreasonable. Glenn Def. Marine-Asia PTE, 

Ltd., B-402687.6, B-402687.7, Oct. 13, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 3 at 7.

In this case, the record reflects that Tokyu submitted the P-998 Wharf Upgrade 

project to demonstrate its relevant experience, as alleged by Obayashi. The record 

also reflects that the agency initially rated Tokyu’s experience as unacceptable, 

finding that the majority of the P-998 Wharf Upgrade work related to the wharf, and

that “only a component of the refueling system was replaced.”1

 Agency Report 

(AR), Tab 6, Initial Evaluation Report, at 15. During discussions, the agency 

advised Tokyu of its view that the P-998 Wharf Upgrade project did not meet the 

RFP’s minimum experience criteria. Tokyu, however, provided supplemental 

information concerning the project in its revised proposal. Specifically, Tokyu 

informed the agency that the P-998 Wharf Upgrade work included the construction 

of a POL fueling system at berth 13 to include an underground fuel tank with Class 

I, Division I electrical work. AR, Tab 8, Revised Past Experience Proposal, at 1. 

Following receipt of Tokyu’s revised proposal, the agency determined to further 

verify the scope and extent of POL work completed on the P-998 Wharf Upgrade 

project. Accordingly, the agency conferred with its contracting division chief--an 

advisor to the evaluation board on this procurement, and the contracting officer on 

the P-998 Wharf Upgrade project--who confirmed that the P-998 Wharf Upgrade 

project included the construction of a complete POL facility at Yokosuka Naval 

Base. In addition, the agency contacted the Yokosuka Resident Office (YRO), 

which was the branch of the agency’s Japan Engineer District charged with contract 

oversight of the P-998 Wharf Upgrade project. The YRO also confirmed that the 

work completed by Tokyu under the project “included construction of a complete 

POL facility integrated into the wharf complex.” Contracting Officer Statement at 6.

On the basis of the supplemental project information contained in Tokyu’s revised 

proposals, and the confirmation of the contracting division chief and the YRO, the 

evaluation board concluded that the P-998 Wharf Upgrade project met the minimum 

past experience standards set forth in the RFP. Accordingly, the evaluation board 

unanimously agreed that Tokyu’s proposal was acceptable under the past 

experience evaluation factor. 

Based on this record, we conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated Tokyu’s 

proposal as acceptable under the experience factor. Where Tokyu’s proposal was 

 

1 The agency found the P-998 Wharf Upgrade project acceptable concerning the 

other elements of the experience factor. Tokyu was the prime contractor for the 

project, which had a value of ¥3,860,000,000, and was completed in 2008. 
Page 4 B-407792 

acceptable under all evaluation factors, and had the lowest price, we see no error in 

the agency’s award decision. 

We deny the protest. 

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel