About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-412828 1 (2016-06-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadskz0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A O Comptroller General Accountabilty * Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to Decision a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Arcadis U.S., Inc. File: B-412828 Date: June 16, 2016 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Lisa Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Amy M. Conant, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for OBG/Baker Federal Solutions Joint Venture, the intervenor. Thomas J. Ingram, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals is sustained where the evaluation was unreasonable and inadequately documented. 2. Protest that source selection decision was unreasonable is sustained where the best-value determination was based on an unreasonable and inadequately documented evaluation, and did not include consideration of the protester's lowest-priced proposal in the tradeoff analysis. DECISION Arcadis U.S., Inc., of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to OBG/Baker Federal Solutions Joint Venture, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, under an unnumbered request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for remedial action and surface support assistance at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site near Lead, South Dakota.' Arcadis challenges the evaluation of its proposal, the evaluation of the awardee's proposal, and the agency's best-value determination. 1 Because the value of the task order is over $10 million, our Office has jurisdiction to review this protest. 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(1)(B).