Seven of 16 firms advanced toward five planned awards
The Army Corps of Engineers sought a target of five architecture-engineering contracts with a shared $200 million capacity. Sixteen firms submitted qualifications; the selection board invited the seven highest-ranked to interviews and ranked Michael Baker-International Stantec JV tenth.
Each contract could run five years, with task orders expected between $250,000 and $25 million. Those are authorization ranges: no firm was promised one-fifth of the capacity or any minimum task-order amount.
| Measure | Record |
|---|---|
| Qualifications submitted | 16 |
| Interview group | 7 |
| Protester rank | 10th |
| Target awards | 5 |
| Shared capacity | $200M |
The board imposed a project type not stated in the notice
The Corps rated the joint venture above average on experience but assigned a weakness because its ten examples did not include a traditional design-bid-build new-construction vertical facility. GAO found that specific combination was not a stated requirement.
The solicitation sought relevant horizontal and vertical design experience and said more similar projects would rate higher. GAO distinguished that disclosed preference from converting one precise delivery method and facility type into a minimum test after proposals arrived.
GAO did not accept every protest argument
The watchdog sustained the experience-criterion issue but denied the remainder. That mixed result matters: the decision does not declare the entire evaluation corrupt or order award to the protester.
GAO recommended reevaluation consistent with the solicitation and reimbursement of reasonable protest costs for the successful ground. The agency retains discretion to conduct a lawful evaluation and could reach a different ranking with adequate support.
Method and limits
What’s the Scoop With Broach reconstructed the competition funnel from the public decision and compared the published criterion with the weakness actually applied. The newsroom did not review protected competitor submissions.
The $200 million figure is shared contract capacity, not proven spending or damages. The decision shows one material evaluation error and several rejected objections, not favoritism or a completed improper payment.
Sources and further reading
GAO bid-protest decision B-424641 and B-424641.2 ↗
Army Corps engineering-site photograph and public-domain record ↗