TITLE:  T. J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc., B-294425, September 14, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294425
DATE:  September 14, 2004
**********************************************************************
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
                                                                              
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the      
decision in its entirety.                                                  

   Decision

   A 

   Matter of:   T. J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc.

   A 

   File:            B-294425

   A 

   Date:              September 14, 2004

   A 

   Kenneth A. Carlson, Esq., and Melanie D. Manning, Esq., Tracy, Johnson &
Wilson, for the protester.

   Patrick A. Mysliwy, Esq., Maish & Mysliwy, an intervenor.

   Sanford A. Solomon, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   A 

   Protester*s allegation that agency misevaluated its proposal is denied
where record shows agency*s determination that protester*s proposal was
unacceptable was reasonable and consistent with evaluation factors.

   DECISION

   A 

   T.J. Lambrecht Construction, Inc. (TJL) protests the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers* award of a contract to Dyer Construction Company under request
for proposals (RFP) No. W912P6-04-R-0001, for flood control on Deer Creek,
Ford Heights, Illinois.  TJL challenges the evaluation, and resulting
rejection, of its proposal.

   A 

   We deny the protest.

   A 

   The RFP, issued on May 10, 2004, provided for award of a fixed-price
contract to widen the channel along Deer Creek, excavate two shallow
reservoirs, and build a concrete spillway and various culverts and
headwalls.  Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the
lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer.  The RFP provided that, in
order for a proposal to be considered technically acceptable, it had to
receive a *go* rating under each of eight evaluation factors, which
covered areas such as past performance, ability to excavate material,
ability to haul material, experience working below water level, and
experience building cast-in-concrete structures.  The solicitation
specifically required that the information presented in the proposal
*provide more than superficial coverage* of the areas to be addressed in
the technical proposal.  RFP at 20.

   A 

   Six firms submitted proposals.  TJL*s proposal was the lowest-priced, but
the technical evaluation panel determined that it was unacceptable under
three evaluation areas.  The agency therefore made award to Dyer, whose
technically acceptable proposal was next lowest in price.  TJL maintains
that the agency unreasonably determined that its offer failed to meet the
RFP requirements.

   A 

   In reviewing an agency*s evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposals;
we will only consider whether the agency*s evaluation was reasonable and
in accord with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and
applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Applied Mgmt. Solutions,
Inc., B-291191, Nov.A 15, 2002, 2002 CPD PA 202 at 2. 

   A 

   The agency reasonably rejected TJL*s proposal as unacceptable.  One of the
factors for which TJL*s proposal received a *no go* rating was experience
building casta**ina**place concrete structures, under which offerors were
to *provide documentation of at least two projects, with no time frame
limits, that demonstrate experience building cast-in-place concrete
structures.*  RFP at 21.  In response to this requirement, TJL*s proposal
stated only that *[TJL] does not self perform the actual cast in place
concrete.  However, TJL does perform the excavation and backfill for the
subcontractor for this work.*  TJL Proposal, Vol.A 1,A 3.7.  The proposal
made no mention of projects--performed by TJL or a
subcontractor--involving casta**in-place concrete structures, and did not
include any other information--such as the name of the subcontractor with
which it previously had performed--that might give the agency further
guidance in evaluating the protester*s experience in this area.  Given
TJL*s manifest failure to present the required information establishing
that it possessed the required experience, the agency*s *no go* rating was
reasonable.[1]

   A 

   TJL also challenges the reasonableness of the other two *no go*
findings--under the areas of experience in cold weather conditions, and
the ability to haul 2,000 cubic yards of material per day.  However, these
arguments are academic, and we thus need not address them, since TJL*s
proposal properly was rejected based on the finding that it was
unacceptable under the cast-in-place concrete structures experience area. 
TJL*s proposal could not be accepted for award even if we determined that
the ratings under the two other *no go* areas were unreasonable.

   A 

   The protester further questions the evaluation on the basis that there
were inconsistencies in the evaluation record.  These allegations are
without merit.  For example, the protester alleges that there was
disagreement among the evaluators regarding the merits of its proposal. 
However, the lack of unanimity among evaluators in considering a proposal
does not provide a basis to challenge the validity of the evaluation.  See
Roy F. Weston, Inc., B-274945 et al., Jan.A 15, 1997, 97a**1A CPD P 92
atA 5A n.7. 

   A 

   The protest is denied.

   A 

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

   A 

   A 

   A 

   ------------------------

   [1] TJL asserts that the agency should have asked clarifying questions
before rejecting its proposal.  However, if the agency had advised TJL of
the deficiencies in its proposal and provided the firm with an opportunity
to submit information to make its proposal acceptable, the agency*s action
would have constituted discussions, not clarifications.  Since the RFP
specifically stated that the government intended to evaluate proposals and
award a contract without discussions, RFP at 28, the agency was not
required to provide the firm with such an opportunity to revise its
proposal.  See Federal Acquisition Regulation S 15.306(a)(2); Promar;
Urethane Prods. Corp., Ba**292409 et al., Aug. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD P 187 at
8.