美国政府问责办公室否认了联邦边境墙承包商费舍尔·桑德（Fisher Sand＆Gravel）的抗议活动，该抗议是授予竞争对手西南谷建筑商的障碍合同，尽管价格高3350万美元。高说，两家公司的任务订单提案之间的“实质性差异”是必要的。
有争议的固定价格，设计建造的任务订单是德克萨斯州拉雷多边境墙的13英里部分。费舍尔于9月28日被通知，六家公司向美国陆军工程兵团提交了建议，以应对8月28日的提案请求。
费舍尔（Fisher）在10月初进行抗议后，军团通知西南谷（Southwest Valley）停止了合同的工作。高在1月初决定抗议活动，但直到2月26日才发布其公开编辑版本。
一名军团发言人在3月5日告诉ENR，西南航空收到了新利luck1月15日的通知，该通知于1月23日被暂停，此前乔·拜登（Joe Biden）三天前发布了一项行政命令，停止了所有边境墙壁工作。
所有墙合同仍停止，并在3月下旬被拜登政府审查。根据媒体报道和当地消息来源，拉雷多（Laredo）看不到边界墙的建设。
据Corps称，授予Kiewit Corp.单位西南谷的奖项是基于提议者的风险缓解计划与其管理计划之间的最佳价值权衡。小型企业参与是最不重要的因素。
评估挑战
费舍尔抗议对其提案的评估，称该机构未能合理地记录其最佳价值权衡决定。该公司声称，军团对费舍尔提出的提案“在几乎相同的边界墙壁招标上”提出了更高的评级，并且对拉雷多墙合同的评级是不合理的。
Fisher had the lowest price proposal at $175 million. Southwest Valley bid $208.5 million, but it had the most highly-ranked technical proposal for its risk mitigation plan and management plan, according to the GAO decision.
Fisher’s risk mitigation plan and management plan were both rated “acceptable,” while those submitted by Southwest Valley were rated “good.” A good rating indicated a “thorough approach and understanding of” the objectives, while an acceptable rating reflected an “adequate approach and understanding of” the objectives, the GAO decision explained.
军团说，西南谷提供的减轻风险的叙述大大超过了其他要约人的叙述。该机构说，承包商“也清楚地考虑并确定了该项目的特定风险。”军团说：“这些确定的风险以及（西南山谷）如何减轻他们的意图如何增加政府的信心，即[公司]将能够克服这些地区的建筑挑战和复杂性。”
Fisher did not discuss or consider two important risks, which were redacted from the publicly released GAO decision, or any other risks that were specific to the project, the Corps said. The agency's source selection advisory council said it was concerned about the impact that could have on the government.
Southwest Valley also had a much stronger management plan proposal, the Corps said. The firm "appears to have spent time considering ways to manage the project to ensure successful performance," said the agency. In contrast, Fisher’s [management plan] "was less clear,” the Corps said. Fisher met minimum requirements of the RFP but did not provide much detail, the Corps said.
GAO Explanation
In its decision, GAO said Fisher had a slightly better small-business participation proposal, but it did not provide letters of commitment from companies, which does not assure the contractor will exceed the RFP’s goals, GAO said.
The Corps responded to Fisher’s complaint that it had higher ratings on a similar wall barrier proposal and therefore should have had higher ratings on the Laredo proposal by saying that "as a general matter, the technical evaluation of an offeror's proposal is a matter within the agency's discretion, and a protester's disagreement with the agency's judgement does not establish that the evaluation is unreasonable."
GAO agreed that Fisher’s complaints regarding the non-price ratings it received in the Laredo procurement failed to state a valid basis for protest.
费舍尔还声称，最有价值的权衡决策是不合理的，称该军团未能对价格进行足够的考虑，这两个提案之间只有很小的技术差异。
军团表示，它特别考虑了西南谷价格差异的幅度，但得出结论认为，该公司技术建议的多个有益方面需要保费。
高洛说，西南谷的提议详细讨论了与Laredo采购相关的具体风险，而费舍尔的提议主要解决了所有边境墙合同共有的风险。
高还说，没有发现质疑军团对西南谷提议或价格溢价中评估优势的核心确定的依据。
费舍尔没有退还对GAO裁决的置评请求。
