The Real Estate Center--Costs, B-274081.7, March 30, 1998

B-274081.7 Mar 30, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights REC's application was submitted in response to a November 7. That the appropriate standard of review for such acquisitions was whether or not the agency acted reasonably in conducting them. We found that the terms of the letter solicitation were reasonable. REC was notified of the selections and informed that its application had not been approved. The protest raised essentially five allegations: (1) the selections were unreasonable because the VA had failed to adequately document its bases for the approval or disapproval of broker applications. (2) the rejection of REC's application was the result of unfair and biased treatment which represented retaliation for protests filed by REC and constituted its de facto debarment. View Decision Matter of: The Real Estate Center--Costs File: B-274081.7 Date: March 30, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Real Estate Center (REC) requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the evaluation of its application to become a designated management broker for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). REC's application was submitted in response to a November 7, 1996, letter invitation for the submission of applications. We recommend that the agency reimburse REC its protest costs. PROTEST BACKGROUND On November 15, 1996, REC protested that the terms of VA's November 7 letter soliciting applications for management broker services violated the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In denying that protest, our Office found that CICA and the FAR did not apply to VA's acquisition of management broker services, and that the appropriate standard of review for such acquisitions was whether or not the agency acted reasonably in conducting them; under that standard, we found that the terms of the letter solicitation were reasonable. The Real Estate Ctr., B-274081.4, Feb. 24, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 85 at 2-4. During the pendency of that protest, VA selected three brokers from the group of 12 that had submitted applications and, on January 31, 1997, REC was notified of the selections and informed that its application had not been approved. REC protested the selection decision on February 10 and, following a debriefing, supplemented its protest on February 18. The protest raised essentially five allegations: (1) the selections were unreasonable because the VA had failed to adequately document its bases for the approval or disapproval of broker applications; (2) the rejection of REC's application was the result of unfair and biased treatment which represented retaliation for protests filed by REC and constituted its de facto debarment; (3) while the FAR might not technically apply to VA's acquisition of broker services, the principles of the FAR should serve as a guide to determine the fairness of the selection process; (4) the selection decisions were not based on the stated evaluation criteria insofar as the initially identified per-property price schedule for management services was different from the price schedule actually established for the successful applicants; and (5) the limitation of approvals to three applicants was improper in light of VA's previously stated intention to include as many brokers as were determined qualified to meet the agency's requirements. On March 3, the agency requested that we dismiss the protest and the protester responded by letter dated March 10. We declined to dismiss the protest and the agency filed its report on the March 12 due date. With respect to the first allegation raised by REC, the report contained no narrative concerning the adequacy of the evaluation and selection documentation but did include portions of some existing documentation. On March 14, REC objected to VA's alleged failure to produce or identify relevant documents and restated its earlier request for documentation related to the evaluation and selection processes. In response, VA provided REC certain additional documents on March 21. Our Office conducted a telephone conference on March 26 to settle remaining document request issues, at which time VA represented that it had provided REC with all documents relied upon by the agency to evaluate applications and make the selection decisions. April 4 was established as the due date for the protester's comments. REC filed comments on April 4, which, inter alia, reiterated the initial allegations that the evaluation of its proposal and the selection decision were not adequately documented.