The protester contended that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable because it contradicted itself. Namely, the agency assigned both a strength and a weakness to parts of its functional concept proposal. GAO concluded there was no contradiction because the strengths and weaknesses were assigned to different aspects of the proposal’s approach.
DPR-RQ Construction, LLC, GAO B-422081.2
- Protest – The agency issued a task order for renovations to medical facilities. The protester challenged the evaluation of proposals under the functional concept and schedule evaluation factors.
- Functional Concept Evaluation – The agency assessed four weaknesses in the protester’s functional concept proposal. The protester challenged three of them.
- Sterile Processing Department: The agency assigned a weakness because the protester proposed that the sterile processing department’s layout would remain similar to the existing layout. The protester argued that this contradicted the strength that was assigned for protester’s functional concepts diagram for the sterile processing department. GAO did not think so since the agency assigned the weakness for a different aspect of the approach than the strength.
- Corridor in the Surgical Suite: Similarly, the surgical suite corridor upgrade was credited with a strength to “acquire additional space” but assessed a weakness for the proposed addition of a “swing space Control Desk” which was not programmed or budgeted for. Due to differing aspects, GAO found it reasonable for the agency to assign a weakness and a strength for the surgical suite.
- Oral Maxillofacial Surgery: The protester alleged disparate treatment because its design was the same as the awardee’s. GAO found the designs fundamentally different. For example, the protester’s proposed shape was not user friendly. Thus, GAO denied the protest.
- Schedule Evaluation – The agency assigned a weakness based on its concern for the overall Period of Performance (PoP). The solicitation provided a maximum period of performance of 1,440 days from the notice to proceed (NTP) while the protester’s initial proposal represented the PoP was 1,395 calendar days (45 days) from NTP with an overall task order duration of 1,440 calendar days. Despite the protester’s objection that the proposal still reflected 1,440 days between NTP and completion, GAO found the agency’s evaluation reasonable.
- Awardee’s Proposal – The protester also argued the awardee’s price was materially unbalanced, meaning the price of one or more contract line item numbers (CLIN) is significantly over or understated even if the total price is acceptable. Because the solicitation did not provide for the evaluation of proposed prices for balance under FAR part 15, GAO denied the protest.
- Price Reasonableness – Finally, the protester disputed the agency’s price reasonableness analysis because the agency allegedly failed to meaningfully compare prices. GAO disagreed. It found that the record demonstrated that the agency evaluated the offerors’ proposed prices for reasonableness by comparing overall prices to not only the IGE but also to competing proposals.
The protester was represented by Richard J. Pinto II of Marks & Pinto, LLP. The intervenor was represented by Reginald M. Jones, Nicholas T. Solosky, Robert D. Pratt, and Jung
Hyoun Han of Fox Rothschild LLP. The agency was represented by Cristy Park, of the Army.
Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
