The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to reopen a federal construction oversight competition covering the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico after a government review identified two failures in how the agency evaluated contractors' proposed prices.
The deficiencies emerged during a bid protest filed by Atlanta-based Accura Engineering and Consulting Services, which challenged the Corps' selection of Radise International L.C., a Puerto Rico-based company, to provide quality assurance services for federal construction projects.
According to decisions issued by the Government Accountability Office, the Corps failed to evaluate prices for future contract years as required by its solicitation and did not conduct a mandatory assessment of whether proposed prices were realistic for the work.
The Army Corps subsequently agreed to issue a new solicitation, revise its price evaluation methodology and allow interested contractors to submit new proposals.
Contract Covered Construction Projects in USVI and Puerto Rico
The original procurement, issued November 7, 2024, sought contractors to inspect and oversee construction work at federal facilities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The services covered civil works, military construction and projects undertaken for other federal agencies. Contractors would be responsible for monitoring construction quality and compliance with project requirements.
The Corps structured the procurement as a small-business competition for a contract lasting one year, with four additional one-year options. Companies were evaluated on technical approach, past performance and price.
Eight contractors submitted proposals by the January 6, 2025 deadline. Following discussions, seven submitted revised proposals, including Accura and Radise.
The Corps selected Radise, based in Barranquitas, Puerto Rico, after giving the company the highest technical rating among the competitors.
Radise proposed $1,114,808 for the initial task order, compared with Accura's $947,949. Although Accura offered a lower price, the Corps determined that Radise's stronger technical proposal justified the additional expense.
Accura challenged the decision, arguing that the agency had improperly evaluated the proposals and failed to follow its own pricing requirements.
Federal Review Identifies Two Evaluation Failures
On February 20, 2026, a GAO attorney reviewing the protest advised the parties that Accura's challenges to the Corps' price evaluation would likely succeed.
The review identified two deficiencies.
First, the Corps had failed to consider proposed prices for the contract's option years, despite solicitation language requiring those costs to be included in the evaluation.
Second, the agency had not performed the required price realism analysis for the initial task order. That assessment was intended to determine whether contractors' proposed prices reflected an adequate understanding of the work and were consistent with their technical plans.
The GAO attorney indicated that the deficiencies would likely warrant corrective action and reimbursement of reasonable protest costs associated with the successful challenges.
On February 26, the Army Corps notified GAO that it would address the problems by issuing a new solicitation with a revised methodology for evaluating prices.
The agency said the new process would allow Accura and other interested contractors to submit proposals for a replacement award.
GAO subsequently dismissed the underlying protest after the Corps agreed to take corrective action.
Dispute Continued Over Contractor's Legal Expenses
Although the Corps agreed to correct its pricing evaluation and reimburse Accura for costs associated with those challenges, the company sought reimbursement for additional expenses involving its objections to the technical evaluation.
Accura had argued that the Corps improperly rated Radise's technical proposal as outstanding despite identifying potential risks involving the company's proposed key personnel. It also maintained that its own technical submission deserved a higher rating.
The Corps opposed reimbursing those additional costs, arguing that the technical-evaluation complaints were separate from the pricing deficiencies that prompted corrective action.
In a June 23 decision, GAO agreed with the Corps, declining to recommend reimbursement for expenses associated with the separate technical challenges.
Accura requested reconsideration, arguing that its technical and pricing objections were connected and should not have been treated separately.
GAO rejected that request on August 5, finding that Accura had not demonstrated a material error in its earlier decision.
The rulings did not reverse the Army Corps' agreement to conduct a new procurement. They addressed which legal expenses the government would reimburse.
New Procurement Notice Lists $35 Million Contract Capacity
Separately, the Army Corps published a May 20, 2026 procurement notice for quality assurance services covering civil works, military construction and other federal projects in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
The notice, identified as W51DQV26RA007, describes construction oversight services similar to those sought in the disputed procurement, including inspections, engineering reviews, materials testing and construction safety reporting.
The proposed contract has a maximum capacity of $35 million over a period of up to five years and six months, including extensions. That figure represents the potential contract ceiling, not an amount already awarded or spent.
The notice identifies the competition as reserved for qualifying small businesses and states that the Corps anticipated issuing a formal request for proposals by July.
The publicly available notice does not expressly identify the procurement as the replacement for the contract challenged by Accura. Nor does it establish whether a new contract has since been awarded.
The GAO decisions also do not identify particular construction projects in the Virgin Islands that were affected by the disputed award or establish whether the procurement process delayed work in the territory.
The Corps' corrective action provides for a new competition to select a contractor responsible for monitoring construction work under the regional program. The outcome of that process was not established in the records reviewed.
