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: Walbridge Aldinger Company

File: B-405949.2

Date: January 23, 2012

Joseph A. McManus, Jr., Esq., and David J. Butzer, Esq., McManus & Darden, LLP, for 

the protester.

John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., Peter J. Eyre, Esq., James G. Peyster, Esq., Grant J. 

Book, Esq., Derek R. Mullins, Esq., and Kate Molony, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for 

M.A. Mortenson Company; Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Jon W. Burd, Esq., and Benjamin 

J. Kohr, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, for MW Builders, Inc.; and David A. Rose, The Rose 

Consulting Law Firm, LLC, for Satterfield Pontikes and Mason & Hanger, a Joint 

Venture, the intervenors.

Mary L. Ashby, Esq., Connie L. Baran, Esq., and Keith J. Klein, Esq., Department of 

the Army, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

1. Agency’s source selection under a solicitation that provided for the award of 

multiple contracts, and which did not expressly discuss the protester’s and certain of 

the other offerors’ proposals as compared to the awardees’ proposal, was reasonably 

based, where the agency received and evaluated 41 proposals for award, and 

expressly discussed in its best-value analysis, but did not select, proposals that were 

lower-priced and equally or higher rated than the protester’s proposal.

2. Agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal was reasonable where the 

evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, and the agency 

apparently did not realize when evaluating the protester’s proposal that certain 

requested information that was not in the section of the protester’s proposal subject 

to evaluation was included elsewhere in the proposal.

DECISION

Walbridge Aldinger Company protests the award of contracts to MW Builders, Inc.;

M.A. Mortenson, Inc.; Satterfield and Pontikes/Mason & Hanger, a Joint Venture; and 

Caddell Construction Company, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) 
Page 2 B-405949.2 

No. W912HN-11-R-0003, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the 

Army, for construction services. The protester argues that the agency’s evaluation of 

its proposal and source selection decision were unreasonable.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on March 21, 2011, provided for the award of up to four 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a period of 3 years or 

$499 million, whichever occurs first. The successful offerors may, through the 

issuance of task orders, construct, or design and construct, certain facilities in the 

western region of the United States.1

 RFP at 1, 19. 

The solicitation provided that award would be made to the offeror(s) whose 

proposal(s) represented the best value based upon the following evaluation factors: 

(1) corporate relevant specialized experience; (2) past performance; (3) design 

experience; (4) proposed contract duration and summary schedule; (5) small 

business utilization; and (6) price. The RFP informed offerors that in determining 

which proposal(s) offered the best value, the corporate relevant specialized 

experience and past performance factors were equal in importance, and each more 

important than the remaining non-price evaluation factors; and the design 

experience factor was more important than the proposed contract duration and 

summary schedule factor, which in turn was more important than the small business 

utilization factor. The RFP informed offerors that their proposals would be rated 

under each non-price evaluation factor and overall as “outstanding,” “above 

average,” “satisfactory,” “marginal,” or “unsatisfactory.” RFP at 28-30. The RFP also 

provided that the non-price factors combined were considered equal in importance 

to price. RFP at 30.

The agency received and evaluated 41 proposals in response to the solicitation. 

These proposals were evaluated by the source selection evaluation board, which 

documented its ratings in a 208-page report. The report supported each of the 

ratings given each offeror, under each evaluation factor and overall, with identified 

strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as narrative comments. Walbridge’s 

proposal was evaluated as “outstanding” under the corporate relevant specialized 

experience factor, “above average” under the past performance and design 

experience factors, “satisfactory” under the proposed contract duration and 

 1

The solicitation provided that the following states comprise the western region: 

Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, 

Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. RFP at 19.
Page 3 B-405949.2 

summary schedule and small business utilization factors, and “above average” 

overall. Walbridge’s proposal was the tenth lowest priced ($28,761,215) of the 

proposals received. Agency Report (AR), Tab F, Source Selection Decision, at 2.

The source selection decision includes a short introduction, and sets forth the 

ratings and prices of all 41 proposals listed in order of lowest price to highest price. 

The source selection decision then discusses and provides detailed reasons justifying 

each of the four awards. 

In determining which proposals represented the best value, the source selection 

authority (SSA) began her analysis by considering the lowest-priced proposal, which 

had been submitted by MW Builders and had received an overall rating of “above 

average” at an evaluated price of $26,951,100. AR, Tab F, Source Selection Decision, 

at 2-3. The SSA first compared MW Builders’ proposal to all other higher-priced 

proposals that had received the lower rating of “satisfactory” overall, and concluded 

that there was “no value or benefit to be had” in selecting “a higher priced, lower 

rated” proposal. Id. at 3. The SSA next compared MW Builders’ proposal to “all 

other higher priced Above Average rated” proposals, and concluded that “there is no 

added benefit or value to paying more for a proposal wherein there is no difference 

in technical ratings.” Id. The SSA then compared MW Builders’ proposal to the 

lowest-priced proposal that had received a higher overall rating under the non-price 

factors--Mortenson’s proposal, which was rated as “outstanding” overall with an 

evaluated price of $27,509,900. The record reflects that the SSA considered the 

merits of MW Builder’s and Mortenson’s competing proposals, and ultimately 

determined that Mortenson’s and all other higher-priced proposals that were rated 

outstanding were not “sufficiently advantageous to merit [the] additional cost.” 

Id. at 3-4.

The SSA continued with the same type of analysis in also selecting the proposals of 

Mortenson, Satterfield and Pontikes/Mason & Hanger, and Caddell, for award. That 

is, the SSA methodically compared each of these proposals, which were the next 

three lowest-priced proposals submitted, against each other as well as the next 

lower-priced proposals with lower, the same or higher overall ratings. Id. at 4-5. The 

source selection decision did not specifically compare the awardees’ proposals to 

most of the 41 proposals received.

The SSA selected the proposals of MW Builders (evaluated as above average overall 

at $26,951,100), Mortenson, Inc. (evaluated as outstanding overall at $27,509,900), 

Satterfield and Pontikes/Mason & Hanger (evaluated as satisfactory overall at 

$27,611,100), and Caddell (evaluated as above average overall at $27,613,988), for 

award. After requesting and receiving a debriefing, Walbridge, whose proposal was 

evaluated as “above average” overall with the tenth lowest evaluated price of 

$28,761,215, filed this protest.
Page 4 B-405949.2 

DISCUSSION

The protester argues that the process used by the SSA in selecting the proposals for 

award was improper because Walbridge’s proposal was not specifically discussed in 

the SSA’s best value determination. 

Source selection officials in negotiated procurements have broad discretion in 

determining the manner and extent to which they will make use of technical and 

price evaluation results; price/technical trade-offs may be made, and the extent to 

which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality 

and consistency with the evaluation criteria. Atteloir, Inc., B-290601, B-290602, 

Aug. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 160 at 5. Where a price/technical tradeoff is made, the 

source selection decision must be documented, and the documentation must include 

the rationale for any tradeoffs made, including the benefits associated with 

additional costs. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 15.308; The MIL Corp., B-297508, 

B-297508.2, Jan. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 34 at 13. However, there is no requirement 

that an agency selection decision discuss the agency’s comparison of every proposal 

received in order to document the selection of the awardees’ proposals. Rather, the 

documentation need only be sufficient to establish the agency was aware of the 

relative merits and costs of the competing proposals and that the source selection 

was reasonably based. See General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Sys., B-401658, 

B-401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 217 at 8. 

As described previously, the SSA began her best value analysis with the 

lowest-priced proposal, followed by the next lowest-priced proposals submitted, and 

compared each of the lowest-priced proposals against each other as well as the next 

lower-priced and lower, equally, or higher-rated proposals. Although the protester is 

correct that the SSA did not specifically discuss Walbridge’s “above average” 

proposal in the best value analysis, the record does show that the SSA specifically 

considered, and rejected, for the purposes of making an award, another “above 

average” proposal and an “outstanding” proposal, both of which were lower-priced 

than Walbridge’s proposal. In our view, the source selection decision is adequately 

documented, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and reasonably based,

given the broad discretion afforded source selection officials, and considering that 

the agency received, evaluated, and essentially considered 41 proposals for award. 

Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule Factor 

Walbridge argues that the evaluation of its proposal as “satisfactory” under the 

proposed contract duration and summary schedule factor was unreasonable. The 

protester argues that the agency unreasonably assessed Walbridge’s proposal as 

having a “weakness” under this factor because the proposal did not include activities 

related to the installation of a cooling tower in either its summary construction 

schedule or its narrative explaining the schedule.
Page 5 B-405949.2 

The solicitation required that proposals address the proposed contract duration and 

summary schedule evaluation factor by including, among other things, a summary 

schedule “with all areas of construction clearly identified,” and a one-page narrative 

explaining how the schedule will be achieved. RFP at 27. The agency, in evaluating 

Walbridge’s proposal under the proposed contract duration and summary schedule 

factor as “satisfactory,” noted as a “weakness” that Walbridge had not included 

“cooling tower activities . . . in either the narrative or schedule.” AR, Tab E, SSEB 

Report, at 188. The agency explains that the cooling tower is “an important item 

with a long lead time,” and that because of this, it “could have and should have been 

discussed in the narrative, even if there was limited space.” AR at 10.

The protester concedes that it failed to address the cooling tower activities in its 

narrative, but contends that it was unreasonable for the agency to downgrade its 

proposal in this regard because “there is no stated requirement that the cooling 

tower be mentioned in the narrative.” Protester’s Comments at 6. 

The protester’s contention that it was impermissible for the agency to find that the 

protester’s failure to address the cooling tower activities in its narrative constituted a 

weakness, because the solicitation did not specifically state that cooling tower 

activities were required to be addressed, is without merit. To be reasonable, an 

interpretation of solicitation language must be consistent with the solicitation when 

read as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. Brown & 

Root, Inc. and Perini Corp., a joint venture, B-270505.2; B-270505.3, Sept. 12, 1996, 

96-2 CPD ¶ 143 at 8. 

Here, the section of the solicitation’s proposal preparation instructions relevant to 

the proposed contract duration and summary schedule evaluation factor did not 

specifically identify any particular activity for inclusion in the proposed schedules 

and accompanying narratives. Rather, the RFP requested that proposals identify and 

explain areas of construction that in turn would be evaluated by the agency to assess 

the offerors’ “overall understanding of the construction process,” and the “strength 

of understanding of the project scope.” RFP at 27. As such, the agency’s 

consideration of whether a proposal referenced the cooling tower activities in the 

proposed schedule and accompanying narrative was consistent with the 

solicitation’s terms. We note here that the protester does not argue that the cooling 

tower activities were immaterial, insignificant, or that an offeror’s failure to mention 

the cooling tower activities would have no bearing on the offeror’s understanding of 

the construction process or project scope. We further note that the protester’s 

interpretation of the RFP renders the factor meaningless as the solicitation did not 

specifically require that any construction activities be addressed.

However, the protester correctly points out that, contrary to the agency’s findings

with regard to this factor, the construction phase section of Walbridge’s schedule did 

in fact reference the installation of cooling towers and a cooling tower screen wall. 

Protest at 13-14; Protester’s Comment at 5; see AR, Tab 5, Walbridge Proposal, 

Contract Duration and Summary Schedule section. The protester adds that “[e]ven if 
Page 6 B-405949.2 

not including the cooling tower in the narrative is a valid weakness, Walbridge’s 

rating still could have been higher on the basis that the cooling tower was included 

in the schedule.” Protester’s Comments at 6. The protester points out that the 

proposal of another offeror, that had included the cooling tower activities in its 

schedule, but not its narrative, was evaluated as “above average” under the proposed 

contract duration and summary schedule factor.2

 Id.; see AR, Tab E, SSEB Report, 

at 88.

Competitive prejudice is necessary before we will sustain a protest; where the record 

does not demonstrate that the protester would have a reasonable chance of receiving 

award but for the agency’s actions, we will not sustain a protest, even if deficiencies, 

such as an unequal evaluation of proposals, is found. Leisure-Lift, Inc., B-291878.3; 

B-292448.2, Sept. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 189 at 10. 

As mentioned previously, Walbridge’s proposal was evaluated as “outstanding” under 

the corporate relevant specialized experience factor, “above average” under the past 

performance and design experience factors, “satisfactory” under the proposed 

contract duration and summary schedule and small business utilization factors, and 

“above average” overall. AR, Tab F, Source Selection Decision, at 2. Assuming for 

the sake of argument that the protester is correct in its assertion that its proposal 

should have been rated as “above average,” rather than “satisfactory,” under the 

fourth most important proposed contract duration and summary schedule evaluation 

factor, we fail to see, and the protester has not reasonably explained, how this would 

have resulted in the elevation of its proposal’s overall “above average” rating to that 

of “outstanding.” Further, even assuming that the correction of the agency’s 

relatively minor evaluation error here would have resulted in Walbridge’s proposal 

being evaluated as “outstanding” overall, we note that another offeror, whose 

proposal received an “outstanding” overall rating (with superior ratings under 

certain of the evaluation factors) with a lower price than Walbridge’s proposal, was 

expressly not selected for award in the source selection decision. Id. As such, we 

fail to see any reasonable possibility that the protester was prejudiced by the 

agency’s apparent evaluation error here.

Small Business Utilization Factor

Walbridge argues that the evaluation of its proposal as “satisfactory” under the small 

business utilization factor was unreasonable. Specifically, the protester contends 

that the agency’s assessment of Walbridge’s proposal as having a “weakness,” based 

upon the agency’s determination that the proposal was “unclear as to whether” 

Walbridge would meet the RFP’s small business subcontracting goals, was not 

reasonably based. Protest at 10-11.

 2 This proposal was higher priced than Walbridge’s and did not receive an award.
Page 7 B-405949.2 

Where a protester challenges an agency’s evaluation of proposals, we will review the 

evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable and consistent with the 

solicitation’s evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations, and to 

ensure that the agency’s rationale is adequately documented. Carothers Constr., 

Inc., B-403382, Oct. 28, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 268 at 6.

The solicitation required that proposals include “a narrative discussion of no more 

than 5 pages addressing [the offeror’s] corporate approach and methodology for 

acquiring, soliciting and using small businesses in the performance of this contract 

and future task orders.” The RFP continued by specifying that the narratives 

“address the Offeror’s commitment to providing subcontracting opportunities, as 

well as evidence of planned and/or continued outreach efforts to encourage and use 

small businesses.” Offerors were further required to identify small business 

subcontractors by category (small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, 

service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, etc.), type of work, and estimated 

percentage in relation to the overall project they would provide during contract 

performance. Finally, the solicitation here advised offerors that their proposals were 

to include a narrative detailing their past history of using small businesses as 

subcontractors. RFP at 28. 

The agency assessed Walbridge’s proposal as having two “strengths” under the small 

business utilization factor, with one strength relating to the proposal’s small business 

utilization narrative and the other noting that Walbridge had met or exceeded the 

overall small businesses utilization goals on each of the last five contracts Walbridge 

had performed. AR, Tab E, SSEB Report, at 188. However, the agency found that 

while Walbridge had “presented a very good program, and a highly successful past 

history,” its proposal remained “unclear” as to whether Walbridge would meet the 

RFP’s stated small business utilization goals. Id. In this regard, the agency was 

unable to find in the proposal the requested information identifying the small 

business subcontractors by category, type of work, and estimated percentage of 

work in relation to the overall project. 

The protester argues that the evaluation was flawed because the requisite 

information identifying the small business contractors by category, type of work, and 

percentage, was located in another volume of its proposal. While the protester 

appears to be correct here, we cannot find the agency’s evaluation to be 

unreasonable on this basis. Our Office has long held that offerors bear the burden of 

submitting adequately written proposals, and contracting agencies evaluating one 

section of a proposal are not obligated to go in search of needed information which 
Page 8 B-405949.2 

the offeror has omitted or failed to adequately present. Sam Facility Mgmt., Inc., 

B-292237, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 147 at 5.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel