About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-405949.2 1 (2012-01-23)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadopw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G A 0 Comptroller General A Accountability - Integrity * Reliability of the United States United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been Decision approved for public releas e. 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)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most