Arsenault Acquisition Corporation; East Mulberry, LLC, B-

Arsenault Acquisition Corporation; East Mulberry, LLC, B- BNUMBER: B-276959; B-276959.2 DATE: August 12, 1997 TITLE: Arsenault Acquisition Corporation; East Mulberry, LLC, B- 276959; B-276959.2, August 12, 1997 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Arsenault Acquisition Corporation; East Mulberry, LLC File: B-276959; B-276959.2 Date:August 12, 1997 Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Michael L. Martinez, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester. Leigh Ann Holt, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Scott Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest against agency's elimination of proposal from further award consideration is dismissed as untimely where not filed at General Accounting Office (GAO) within 10 days after protester was advised that proposal would no longer be considered. 2. Protest that agency improperly eliminated offeror's proposal from competitive range is denied where record shows that firm's proposal was properly ranked [deleted] out of [deleted] received and had no reasonable chance of being selected for award. DECISION Arsenault Acquisition Corporation (AAC) and East Mulberry, LLC protest the elimination of their proposals from the competitive range under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 97-07, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the lease of approximately 102,000 occupiable square feet of office and related space in Fort Collins, Colorado. We deny the protests. The SFO, issued on February 11, 1997, called for the submission of initial offers by March 21. Among other things, the SFO required that any proposed lease space be in a newly constructed building with a maximum floor plate size of 41,000 square feet. In addition, the building was to be located on a 29-35 acre "government campus"-type site. As the acquisition is a two-step negotiated procurement, the SFO advised that no price proposals were to be submitted initially, and that a competitive range would be established among the initial proposals based on an evaluation applying three criteria: Development Team Past Performance, Building Site, and Building Location. GSA received [deleted] offers. GSA reviewed the offers initially for broad compliance with the SFO's technical requirements and, on the basis of this review, eliminated Mulberry's proposal for failure to meet several requirements. Specifically, Mulberry offered a preexisting building (as opposed to the required new structure) that did not meet the 41,000 square foot floor plate requirement and was not located on a 29-35 acre "government campus" site, as required.[1] Mulberry was advised of the elimination of its offer as unacceptable on March 31. Thereafter, on April 21, Mulberry attempted to submit a second proposal; by the terms of this proposal, Mulberry offered to divide its preexisting building in order to meet the 41,000 square foot floor plate limitation, and offered to purchase nearby--but not adjacent--land in an effort to satisfy the 29-35 acre "government campus" site requirement. GSA advised Mulberry on April 26 that its second proposal was rejected as late, because it was submitted beyond the March 21 deadline for submission of offers. As for AAC, GSA's source selection panel eliminated that firm's proposal from the competitive range. AAC did not request a formal debriefing but was advised informally that the central basis for eliminating the proposal from the competitive range was the agency's conclusion that AAC's proposed development team and construction contractor did not have adequate experience in designing and constructing a facility of the size and type contemplated by the SFO. MULBERRY'S PROTEST Mulberry maintains that the agency improperly rejected both its initial and second proposals.[2] Under our Bid Protest Regulations, allegations such as Mulberry's challenge to the rejection of its initial proposal must be raised no later than 10 days after the basis of protest was, or should have been, known. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(2). As noted above, GSA advised Mulberry on March 31 that its initial proposal was unacceptable as submitted.