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



B-288934 1 (2001-11-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptamsv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




         G     A    0                                                Comptroller General
             SIntegrity Reliability                                  of the United States
 ~ccountabthty Inert Rea iy
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548



          Decision


          Matter of: ACC Construction Co., Inc.

          File:       B-288934

          Date:       November 21, 2001

          David E. Hudson, Esq., Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Salley, for the protester.
          James F. Archibald, III, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose & White, for Caddell Construction
          Co., Inc., an intervenor.
          Susan K. Weston, Esq., William A. Hough, Esq., and James R. Thornton, Jr., Esq.,
          Department of the Army, for the agency.
          Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          Protest is denied where the agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal was
          reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where the
          solicitation provided that the combination of technical evaluation factors was
          significantly more important than price, the agency reasonably selected for award a
          higher-priced, technically superior proposal.
          DECISION

          ACC Construction Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to Caddell Construction
          Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA21-01-R-0043, issued by the
          Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, to construct the
          Separate Battalions Barracks Complex, Phase I, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. ACC,
          which submitted the low-priced proposal, challenges the agency's evaluation of its
          proposal and the agency's decision to award to a firm submitting a higher technically
          rated, higher-priced proposal.

          We deny the protest.

          BACKGROUND

          The RFP, issued on June 21, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract
          to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government,
          considering technical evaluation factors (past performance, experience, and