Dorris, Helen, and William McMurtry, B-275803; B-275803.2,

Dorris, Helen, and William McMurtry, B-275803; B-275803.2, BNUMBER: B-275803; B-275803.2 DATE: March 31, 1997 TITLE: Dorris, Helen, and William McMurtry, B-275803; B-275803.2, March 31, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Dorris, Helen, and William McMurtry File: B-275803; B-275803.2 Date:March 31, 1997 Mark S. Sifferman, Esq., Norling, Kolsrud, Sifferman, Svejda & Davis, for the protester. Thomas A. McCarville, Esq., for McCarville, Cooper & Vasquez, an intervenor. Emily C. Hewitt, Esq., Donald R. Jayne, Esq., and Marilyn M. Paik, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. The issuance of an unsigned lease document by a contracting officer to an offeror does not constitute an award of a contract to that offeror where the letter accompanying the lease clearly indicates that no contract will arise unless the government signs the lease and the government never signed the lease. 2. An agency properly reopened discussions to address existing proposal deficiencies with, and obtain proposal revisions from, all offerors in the competition where no proposal is acceptable under the solicitation and eligible for award, and the solicitation has been amended in a material manner; under such circumstances, there is no improper technical leveling in reopening discussions. 3. Where a solicitation for leased space defines a late proposal as one received after the due date for submission of best and final offers (BAFO), a protest alleging that a proposal is late if received after the date for submission of initial proposals, but before the BAFO date, constitutes a protest based upon an alleged impropriety in a solicitation apparent prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals, which is untimely if not filed prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals. 4. An ambiguity concerning the identity of an offeror or the possible improper transfer of the offeror's proposal during the course of an ongoing procurement may properly be resolved during discussions prior to award. DECISION Dorris, Helen, and William McMurtry protest solicitation for offers (SFO) No. RAZ- 95816, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for leased space for use by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The McMurtrys protest the reopening of discussions and award to any offeror other than the McMurtrys. We deny the protest. The SFO, issued September 6, 1995, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price lease for 15 years to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror.[1] The date established for submission of initial proposals was November 9. The SFO stated that negotiations would be conducted, proposal revisions would be permitted, and award would be based on best and final offers (BAFO). The SFO incorporated by reference GSA Form 3516, which included selected solicitation provisions from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the GSA Acquisition Regulations (GSAAR), including GSAAR sec. 552.270-3, "Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Offers (AUG 1992)" which stated in pertinent part: (a) Any offer received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of [BAFOs] will not be considered unless it is received before award is made and it [satisfies one of four possible exceptions.] GSA received initial proposals by November 9 from the McMurtrys and from McCarville, Cooper & Vasquez. GSA also received requests for clarification of the solicitation from Mr. William O'Connor, the incumbent lessor. The contracting officer opened negotiations with the McMurtrys and McCarville, and corresponded with Mr. O'Connor concerning the requested clarification. On March 1, 1996, the contracting officer requested submission of BAFOs by March 29; however, after learning that neither the McMurtrys nor McCarville was prepared to submit BAFOs, she canceled the BAFO request. On May 5, Mr. O'Connor submitted his initial proposal. By letter of May 23, the contracting officer requested submission of BAFOs by June 10. The McMurtrys and McCarville submitted BAFOs. By letter of July 29, the contracting officer reopened negotiations and requested receipt of revised BAFOs by August 9, in response to which all three offerors submitted BAFOs. The McMurtrys proposed constructing a new building; the other two offerors proposed modifying existing buildings. The McMurtrys's BAFO was the highest- priced offer.