Matter of:Kerry Lindahl

B-276057 May 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester which entered design competition for the National World War II Memorial is an interested party to challenge the selection of a designer on the basis that the agency improperly reduced the amount of below-grade interior space allegedly required to be included in the design of the Memorial. Since if the protest were sustained. On the basis of which the designer finalist was selected. Is denied where. The solicitation was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC). Is governed by the Brooks Act. The Memorial is to be located in Washington. The CBD announcement explained that the selection process was to be conducted in two stages. View Decision Matter of: Kerry Lindahl File: B-276057 Date: May 7, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Kerry Lindahl protests the selection of Friedrich St. Florian as the architect with whom to negotiate an architect-engineer (A-E) contract under solicitation No. GS-11P-96-AQC-0017. The solicitation was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), for design and other A-E services in connection with the National World War II (WWII) Memorial. The protester contends that after announcing the competition, GSA improperly made a material change in the requirements for the design of the Memorial by reducing the amount of below-grade interior space initially called for, without affording all competitors an opportunity to submit a new design responding to GSA's revised space requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The design competition, classified by GSA as a procurement of A-E services, is governed by the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. Secs. 541-544 (1994), and the implementing provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. These authorities require agencies to publicly announce their A-E requirements, listing general and project-specific evaluation criteria; appoint A-E evaluation boards to review qualification statements already on file, as well as those submitted in response to the synopsis; and evaluate and rank at least three firms on a short list for further contract negotiations in order of ranking. See generally FAR subpart 36.6; Geographic Resource Solutions, B-260402, June 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 278 at 2. In accordance with these requirements, the agency announced the design competition in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on June 11, 1996. [1] GSA synopsized the evaluation criteria and requested interested firms to submit a completed standard form (SF) 254 (A-E and Related Services Questionnaire), and SF 255 (A-E and Related Services for Specific Project Questionnaire), in accordance with FAR Sec. 36.603(b) (FAC 90-29). The synopsis constituted the solicitation. The Memorial is to be located in Washington, D.C., between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, at a site referred to as the Rainbow Pool, extending from the east end of the Reflecting Pool to 17th Street. The CBD announcement explained that the selection process was to be conducted in two stages. In Stage I, in addition to qualifications data, designers were to submit a sketch or graphic illustrating their preliminary design vision for the WWII Memorial, in either black and white or color, mounted on a foam core board, and a narrative description of their intention and philosophy as related to the proposed Memorial. Stage I submissions were to be evaluated for originality, appropriateness, feasibility, and compliance with the project requirements contained in a "Preliminary Program Brochure" (the Brochure) available from GSA. At the conclusion of the Stage I evaluations, the agency was to select at least five designers to proceed to Stage II of the competition and participate in a more detailed conceptual design competition. More than 400 entries, including the protester's, were submitted for consideration in Stage I. An A-E board and a design jury evaluated the qualifications data and initial submissions and selected six designers to proceed to Stage II. Mr. Lindahl's entry was not selected for further consideration. [2] By letter dated August 21, the agency informed all unsuccessful designers of the results of the Stage I competition. The agency then provided the six Stage II competitors with another brochure, which contained more specific information related to architectural, landscaping, and water elements, as well as ceremonial, memorial, and musical components to be considered in designing the Memorial. The Stage II brochure also contained more detailed project requirements related to physical aspects of the Memorial (e.g., size, height, topography, accessibility, etc.). Based on their consideration of the Stage II submissions, the evaluators recommended that St.