American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections, B-276889, July

B-276889 Jul 01, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range after agency evaluators determined that the protester's offered facility was located beyond the geographic area specified in the solicitation. Was improperly excluded from the competitive range because the agency erroneously concluded that the hotel was located outside the geographic limitation set forth in the RFP. [1] We deny the protest. This restriction is critical due to the high level of participants by the Department of Commerce upper management and employees. It did not evaluate Connections's price after the evaluators determined that the proposal was unacceptable and should be excluded from the competitive range because it offered a facility more than five blocks from the Department of Commerce. View Decision Matter of: American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections File: B-276889 Date: July 1, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections protests the award of a contract to the J.W. Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C., by the Department of Commerce pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-DKEX-7-90016, issued to procure conference facilities for the Bureau of Export Administration's Annual Update Conference on strategic trade issues. Connections argues that its proposal, offering conference facilities at the Grand Hyatt Washington Hotel, was improperly excluded from the competitive range because the agency erroneously concluded that the hotel was located outside the geographic limitation set forth in the RFP. [1] We deny the protest. The Commerce Department issued the RFP here on January 31, 1997, seeking conference and hotel facilities and associated services for the July 1997 conference, and for 2 option years. The statement of work specified the characteristics of several needed rooms, including three rooms capable of accommodating at least 350 conferees, and one capable of accommodating 250 conferees. The RFP also stipulated that offered facilities be located no more than five blocks from the main building of the Department of Commerce. Specifically, section B-9 of the RFP provided: "The conference facility must be a walking distance of no more than five blocks to the Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. This restriction is critical due to the high level of participants by the Department of Commerce upper management and employees, and reimbursements for cab fare and metro subway fare would be costly. Also, the use of public transportation would not allow for time flexibility crucial to program format and would increase participants' time away from the office." The Department received two proposals by the March 11 closing date: one from the J.W. Marriott, located at the corner of 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., across the street from the main Commerce building; one from Connections, offering the Grand Hyatt, located at 10th and H Streets, N.W. Although the agency evaluated Connections's proposal on each of the three evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, it did not evaluate Connections's price after the evaluators determined that the proposal was unacceptable and should be excluded from the competitive range because it offered a facility more than five blocks from the Department of Commerce. At the conclusion of the evaluation, award was made to the J.W. Marriott at a price of $552,120 for the base year and both option years. This protest followed. Connections argues that the agency wrongly concluded that the Grand Hyatt is located more than five blocks from the Department of Commerce. As discussed below, Connections's urged interpretation appears to be based on both an unlikely pedestrian route, and an unreasonable assumption that certain kinds of streets should not be counted as forming blocks. Alternatively, Connections argues that the solicitation's five-block requirement was ambiguous and therefore should not be strictly construed. In this regard, Connections contends that city blocks in downtown Washington are of various sizes, and urges that our Office adopt a definition of a block based on a length of distance equal to one of the longest blocks Connections can identify. We are unpersuaded by both arguments. As a preliminary matter, Connections's arguments that the term "block" is imprecise and should be broadly interpreted, are, in essence, claims that the solicitation was ambiguous on its face. In this regard, Connections urges that the RFP's five-block requirement should not be interpreted literally, but should instead be viewed as a requirement that offered facilities be within an easy walking distance, or alternatively, should be interpreted with some fixed distance assigned for each block.