Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 

'Marginal' Rating Improper Where Strengths My Overpower Weakness

Thursday, July 27, 2017 05:15 am


Sustained: Evaluation & Tradeoff Decision

Matter of: Mevacon-NASCO JV; Encanto Facility Services, LLC, 2017 U.S. Comp. Gen. -414329; B-414329.2; B-414329.3; B-414329.4 (May 11, 2017)

Together, two protesters managed to convince the Comptroller General that a government agency conducted improper evaluations, inadequate discussions, and an unfounded tradeoff decision. Thus, its award was made unreasonably.

Mevacon-NASCO JV (Mevacon) and Encanto Facility Services, LLC (Encanto) were both bidders on a $30-million Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) project to perform repair, maintenance, and construction at Fort Hood, Texas. Despite a solicitation that favored non-price factors over price, the higher-priced Infinite Energy Construction, Inc. (Infinite) won the award. Mevacon and Encanto protested and succeeded on several points outlined below.

Other than price, the key difference between Infinite's proposal and those of Mevacon and Encanto was the rating given for the management approach factor. Infinite's proposal earned an "outstanding" for this factor, while the other two earned "marginal" ratings because of errors in their responses to a hypothetical job order calculation (sample problem). The Comptroller ruled that the agency's interpretation of the sample problem was reasonable, and that it reasonably found that Mevacon's sample problem response contained an error. Importantly, however, the Comptroller also rule [...]

› Next article: 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close