First Street Investments Limited Partnership

First Street Investments Limited Partnership BNUMBER: B-270894.2; B-270894.3 DATE: August 15, 1996 TITLE: First Street Investments Limited Partnership ********************************************************************** Matter of:First Street Investments Limited Partnership File: B-270894.2; B-270894.3 Date:August 15, 1996 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge, for the protester. Barry D. Segal, Esq., and Allan I. Aasmaa, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against award to higher-priced, higher technically rated offeror is denied where the solicitation evaluation scheme gave greater weight to technical merit than price, and the agency reasonably concluded that protester's lower price did not outweigh the technical advantages demonstrated in the awardee's higher-priced proposal. DECISION First Street Investments Limited Partnership protests the award of a contract to Arizona Public Service (Arizona) by the General Services Administration (GSA) under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-09B-96089 for a lease of office and related space for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation in the Phoenix, Arizona area. First Street alleges improprieties in the evaluation of competing offers and the award decision. We deny the protest. The SFO sought offers for a 10-year term, with 5 years firm, for approximately 60,546 rentable square feet yielding between a minimum of 54,492 to a maximum of 57,216 occupiable square feet.[1] The SFO required the space to be located "in a first class quality building of sound and substantial construction" and to have a potential for efficient layout. It further specified that the space offered "should be located in a new or modern office building with facade of stone, marble, brick, stainless steel, aluminum or other permanent materials in good condition acceptable to the contracting officer . . . . Overall, the building should project a professional and aesthetically pleasing appearance including an attractive front and entrance way." Further, the SFO required that if the offered space was not in a new or modern office building, it should be in a building that by occupancy had undergone first class restoration or adaptive reuse for office space with modern conveniences. If the restoration work was underway or proposed, the offeror was required to submit with its offer architectural plans acceptable to the contracting officer. The SFO listed a number of architectural requirements, such as a requirement for windows in each exterior bay, which could be waived by the contracting officer. The SFO provided that the lease contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government, based on price and other factors in the solicitation. The SFO listed the following four evaluation factors and stated that these factors combined were significantly more important than price: building configuration, efficient layout, public parking; and building security. Three firms, including First Street and Arizona, submitted initial offers. First Street offered space currently leased by GSA for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On December 11 and 12, the agency conducted negotiations. On December 12, the contracting officer issued letters requesting the submission of best and final offers (BAFOs) by December 22 and transmitted an amendment. First Street states that the December 12 mailing it received contained only the amendment and the second page of the letter, which did not include the BAFO request. First Street states that it informed the agency on December 13 that it had not received a complete package and on December 19 it sent the agency a fax providing pricing information that had been requested during negotiations. Only Arizona submitted its BAFO by the December 22 BAFO deadline. On January 2, First Street contacted the contracting officer to ask when BAFOs would be requested and was told about the contents of the December 12 letter, which was then faxed to First Street. On January 4, First Street again contacted the agency, and it was agreed that the protester would be permitted to submit its BAFO by January 5. The protester submitted a BAFO in accordance with these instructions, without revising the technical portion of its offer. First Street's price revision was considered in the final evaluation. Arizona was selected for award based on its higher-priced, higher technically rated proposal. First Street primarily challenges the evaluation of the technical proposals and the decision to select Arizona for award.