HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572; B-277572.2; B-277572.3,

HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572; B-277572.2; B-277572.3, BNUMBER: B-277572; B-277572.2; B-277572.3 DATE: October 29, 1997 TITLE: HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572; B-277572.2; B-277572.3, October 29, 1997 ********************************************************************** Matter of:HG Properties A, L.P. File: B-277572; B-277572.2; B-277572.3 Date:October 29, 1997 Thomas W. Rochford, TRS Design & Consulting Services, for the protester. Lisa A. Hallenbeck, Esq., Poore, Roth & Robinson, for Mountain States Leasing-Libby, an intervenor. Richard Salazar, U.S. Forest Service, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In a negotiated procurement for the lease of office and related space, the agency unreasonably found that the awardee's proposed layout satisfied all solicitation requirements and was entitled to a high evaluation score, where the layout was inconsistent with the stated requirement that the computer room be located "away from areas housing microwave equipment and radio transmitters." DECISION HG Properties A, L.P., protests the award of a lease by the U.S. Forest Service to Mountain States Leasing-Libby (MSL) under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. R1-97-04. We sustain the protest. The SFO requested offers for a 10-year lease with two 5-year options for a minimum of 20,728 to a maximum of 21,000 occupiable square feet (sq. ft.) of office and related space in a new or existing building for a Forest Service supervisor's office within the city limits, or up to 2.5 miles outside the city limits, of Libby, Montana. A formula was provided for calculating occupiable space, which the SFO defined to be that portion of rentable space that is available for a tenant's personnel, equipment, and furnishings. The SFO stated that the space must be ready for occupancy by March 1, 1998, and informed offerors that if a different occupancy date were proposed, the contracting officer would determine if that date would reasonably fulfill the Forest Service's needs. The SFO provided specifications detailing the architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, utilities, maintenance, and service requirements. One "special requirement" of the specifications was that the computer room space must be located "away from areas housing microwave equipment and radio transmitters." A "conceptual" drawing of a floor plan for the required space was provided with the SFO to graphically indicate desired spatial relationships and traffic patterns, not to "dictate design" requirements. The SFO stated that, if there were an inconsistency between the written requirements and the conceptual drawing, the written requirements would govern. The SFO provided for a best value basis for award and stated that technical evaluation factors were of equal importance to price. Offerors were informed that the price evaluation would be on the basis of the total annual price per square foot for occupiable space, including any option periods; that the price for parking and "wareyard" areas would be evaluated; and that relocation costs would be added to those offers that would require relocation. The proposal preparation instructions required offerors to provide, among other things, plans illustrating the space offered, and site plans showing the placement of the building on-site, proposed parking, and landscaping. The SFO, as amended, provided the following technical evaluation factors and subfactors in descending order of importance:[1] A. Potential for Efficient Layout B. Energy Efficiency C. Location (1) Public Visibility/Accessibility (2) Size, Configuration, and Flexibility (3) City Utilities (water and sewer) D. Physical Characteristics (1) Environment (2) Safety of Visitors and Occupants F. Past Performance The SFO provided that award would be made by either the agency's notification of unconditional acceptance of the offer or the execution of the lease document by the contracting officer. Offerors were also informed that the executed lease would include all the required clauses, representations and certifications, and pertinent provisions of the SFO and successful offer. Offers were received from five firms, including HG and MSL. HG, the incumbent contractor, offered its existing space within the Libby city limits, while MSL offered space in a building to be constructed outside the Libby city limits. Discussions were conducted with the offerors, and best and final offers (BAFO) received. Because HG's BAFO excluded floor receptacles, the agency decided to reopen discussions with, and obtain revised BAFOs from, HG, MSL, and two other offerors.