The Charles E. Smith Companies, B-277391, September 25, 1997

B-277391 Sep 25, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a General Services Administration (GSA) solicitation for long-term consolidated headquarters space requirements, contending that the technical specifications and other terms of the solicitation unduly favored newly constructed buildings. GAO held that under the terms of the two-phase solicitation, the protester could not protest until it learned that its phase I proposal was accepted and was selected to submit a phase II proposal. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed. View Decision Matter of: The Charles E. Smith Companies File: B-277391 Date: September 25, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Charles E. Smith Companies [1] protests the terms of solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 96.004, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the long-term, consolidated headquarters space requirements for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The protester, the incumbent lessor which is offering the site of its existing buildings, basically contends that the technical specifications and other terms of the SFO are defective as they unduly favor newly constructed buildings. We dismiss the protest. The SFO was issued on June 26, 1996, and contemplated a two-phase proposal submission and evaluation process. Under the terms of the SFO, phase I proposals, which were evaluated for quality of site, quality of design team, and quality of developer, were submitted by the amended closing date of December 23, 1996. Based on the phase I proposals, GSA selected the protester, the incumbent lessor which proposed the site of its existing buildings, and three other firms, which proposed sites where new buildings would be constructed, to continue to participate in the procurement by submitting phase II proposals by the amended closing date of October 27, 1997. [2] Phase II proposals will be evaluated for quality of site, quality of facility design, quality of interior architect, quality of operations and maintenance firm, and price. The SFO stated that the award would be made to the firm whose proposal provides the greatest value to the government, with price being considered significantly less important than the combined weight of the technical evaluation factors. By letter dated March 11, 1997, the contracting officer advised the protester that it had been selected to proceed to phase II of the PTO space consolidation project. This protest, challenging the technical specifications and other terms of the SFO, was filed on June 30, 1997. Technical specifications Section G of the original SFO, captioned "Lessor's Base Building Requirements," contained 43 pages of detailed building specifications. In its protest, the protester challenged as unduly restrictive of competition several of these specifications, including the following: structural live load requirements (Para. G.7.6); toilet rooms (Para. G.8.6); passenger elevator performance criteria (Para. G.8.12); service elevators (Para. G.8.13); environmental requirements (Para. G.10.2); primary electrical service (Para. G.11.1); electrical distribution (Para. G.11.2); communication rooms (Para. G.12.4); and floor-to-ceiling heights in the central computer facility (Para. G.15.2). The protester contends that the substantive requirements of these specifications exceed the government's minimum needs, effectively limiting the competition to new buildings, and therefore should be relaxed. For example, the structural live load requirements of the SFO call for a capacity of 150 pounds per square foot in 20 percent of the space. The protester objected, requesting that the requirement be relaxed to 150 pounds per square foot "as needed." As another example, the SFO required single use service elevators with an amended minimum loading capacity of 4,000 (originally 6,000) pounds. The protester objected, requesting that the requirement further be relaxed to permit dual use service elevators with a minimum loading capacity of 3,000 pounds. In its administrative report filed in response to the protest, GSA argues that the protester's objections to the technical specifications should be dismissed as untimely since those matters were not raised prior to the closing time for the submission of phase I proposals. In response, the protester maintains that its protest of the technical specifications is timely because it was filed prior to the closing time for the submission of phase II technical and design proposals.