440 East 62nd Street Company, B-276787, July 24, 1997

B-276787 Jul 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is unobjectionable where GSA reasonably determined that government's needs could be met and adequate competition would be obtained by using the defined geographical area. The geographical limitation was not otherwise improper. The protester contends that the delineated area is unduly restrictive of competition and otherwise improper. Only the northern boundary of which is relevant to this protest. That boundary as advertised in August 1996 was John F. Was advised by GSA that its proposed building. Was not eligible for consideration. Because it is located north of John F. Labor advised GSA that it was not interested in revising the delineated area. Which is situated approximately 1/8 mile beyond the revised northern boundary of the delineated area. View Decision Matter of: 440 East 62nd Street Company File: B-276787 Date: July 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The 440 East 62nd Street Company (440 East) protests the geographical boundaries in solicitation for offers (SFO) No. MPA96211, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for leased office space to house Department of Labor offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The protester contends that the delineated area is unduly restrictive of competition and otherwise improper. We deny the protest. The lease on the space currently occupied by Labor expires on November 12, 1997. After developing Labor's requirements, including square footage needs, GSA placed an advertisement in The Philadelphia Inquirer on August 4, 1996, advising of its interest in leasing approximately 117,500 square feet of rentable square feet (RSF) (102,000 to 107,000 occupiable square feet (OSF)). In the advertisement, GSA delineated the acceptable geographical area for the leased space, only the northern boundary of which is relevant to this protest. That boundary as advertised in August 1996 was John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The protester submitted a letter of interest in response, and was advised by GSA that its proposed building, located at 401 North Broad Street, was not eligible for consideration, because it is located north of John F. Kennedy Boulevard. The agency conducted a market survey, which identified three buildings within the delineated area that could meet the agency's requirements. The protester requested that the delineated area be expanded to include its building and, in October 1996, Labor and GSA representatives toured 440 East's building. After the site visit, Labor advised GSA that it was not interested in revising the delineated area. However, since 440 East continued to pursue the matter, GSA reviewed its requirements for the delineated area and decided (in addition to other changes not relevant here) to shift the northern boundary further north, to Vine Street. This revised area still did not include the protester's building, which is situated approximately 1/8 mile beyond the revised northern boundary of the delineated area. Accordingly, on April 6, 1997, GSA placed a new advertisement in The Philadelphia Inquirer advising of its interest in leasing 120,000 RSF/104,000 OSF within the redetermined area. GSA conducted a new market survey and identified more than five buildings which could meet the agency's requirements. The protester again expressed interest in the procurement but was advised that GSA would not consider 440 East's property, since it was outside the delineated area. This protest followed. The protester contends that its building must be included in the competition because its building lies within the central business area (CBA) of Philadelphia and that GSA is required to consider all buildings within the CBA under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 12072, August 16, 1978, 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., p. 213; the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR); and the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA). In this regard, 440 East argues that the proper northern boundary of the CBA is Spring Garden, which is north of its property, while the agency maintains that the CBA's northern boundary is Vine Street, which is south of 440 East's building. Thus, the central matter placed at issue in this protest is whether 440 East's building lies inside the CBA. [1] Under E.O. 12072, in the acquisition of government space facilities in urban areas, GSA is required to give first consideration to facilities within a centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including specific areas which may be recommended by local officials. Based on this requirement, the FPMR defines the CBA of an urban area as "the centralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials." FPMR Temp. Reg. D-1, 41 C.F.R. Ch. 101, Subch. D, App., Sec. 101-17.205(p)(1)(1996).