William L. Menefee, B-270518 et al., Mar. 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD

William L. Menefee, B-270518 et al., Mar. 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD BNUMBER: B-270518 et al. , Mar. 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 156 at 4. Even where there is credible evidence of bias, the protester must demonstrate that the bias translated into action which unfairly affected the protester's competitive position; that is, the protester must demonstrate that the allegedly biased official exerted improper influence in the procurement on behalf of the awardee or against the protester. Id. DATE: May 28, 1998 TITLE: William L. Menefee, B-270518 et al., Mar. 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 156 at 4. Even where there is credible evidence of bias, the protester must demonstrate that the bias translated into action which unfairly affected the protester's competitive position; that is, the protester must demonstrate that the allegedly biased official exerted improper influence in the procurement on behalf of the awardee or against the protester. Id., May 28, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:William L. Menefee File:B-279272 Date:May 28, 1998 William L. Menefee III, for the protester. Lynn W. Flanagan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Selection of offer with higher combined technical and price scores than that proposed by the protester is unobjectionable where the evaluation was conducted in accordance with solicitation, and the record supports the agency's view that the protester's proposed building site was less desirable than the awardee's. DECISION William L. Menefee protests the award of a lease to Cook Carson, Inc. (Carson) under solicitation for offers (SFO) No 57-7335-79, issued by the Department of Agriculture for office space in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. Menefee argues that the award to Carson at a rent higher than that proposed by Menefee is based on USDA's continued bias against Menefee, which translated to an unreasonable evaluation of its offer. We deny the protest. As amended, the SFO calls for 7,550 square feet (sq. ft.) of occupiable space in a new or existing building of sound and substantial construction, along with 50 on-site, paved parking spaces to house the offices of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Economic Community Development Service (RD), and the National Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS).[1] The SFO contemplated award of a 5-year lease with one 5-year option to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, was most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. Offers were to be evaluated on the basis of the following eight technical factors, worth a maximum of 50 points,[2] and listed in descending order of importance: (1) quality/physical characteristics (including the age and physical condition of the building, interior and exterior appearance of the space, attractiveness of grounds, landscaping and approaches); (2) accessibility and location (accessibility to primary hard-surfaced roads, compatibility with surrounding area, and proximity of eating facilities); (3) layout capability (layout efficiency of space); (4) safety (including fire and structural safety, and surrounding area); (5) parking; (6) first floor space; (7) fixed rate, fully serviced lease; and (8) energy conservation. With regard to price, also worth a maximum of 50 points, the offeror proposing the lowest annual rental would receive the maximum number of points for price. Other offerors would receive a percentage of these points based on a ratio of the low offeror's annual rental to the other offerors' annual rental. Menefee's and Carson's offers were among those submitted in response to the SFO by the September 22, 1997 extended due date. Menefee submitted offers for two locations--for the existing space currently occupied by the three USDA agencies, and space in a building to be constructed on its offered site; Carson proposed to construct a new building on its offered site. Menefee's and Carson's initial proposals were evaluated as follows: Menefee Existing Space Menefee New Space Carson New Space Quality/Physical Characteristics (12 Maximum Points) 9 11 11 Accessibility and Location (11 Max. Pts.)9 10 10 Layout Capability (7 Max. Pts.) 6 7 7 Safety (5 Max. Pts.) 3 5 5 Parking (5 Max. Pts.) 3 4 5 First Floor Space (4 Max. Pts.) 4 4 4 Fixed Rate, Fully Serviced Lease (4 Max. Pts.)44 4 Energy Conservation (2 Max. Pts.) 2 2 2 TOTAL TECH. PTS.