HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572.4, February 11, 1998

B-277572.4 Feb 11, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging the amendment of a solicitation for lease of office space that delays the requested occupancy date and deletes references to microwave equipment is denied where the later occupancy date satisfies the agency's needs and accommodates delays caused by a prior protest and where the agency had determined that it will have no microwave equipment in the office space. Informed offerors that if a different occupancy date were proposed. One "special requirement" of the specifications was that the computer room space must be located "away from areas housing microwave equipment and radio transmitters.". The SFO provided for a best value basis for award and stated that technical evaluation factors were of equal importance to price. View Decision Matter of: HG Properties A, L.P. File: B-277572.4 Date: February 11, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION HG Properties A, L.P. protests the U.S. Forest Service's amendment of solicitation for offers (SFO) No. R1-97-04. We deny the protest. As issued, the SFO requested offers for a 10-year lease with two 5-year options for office and related space in a new or existing building for a Forest Service supervisor's office within or near Libby, Montana. 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." The SFO provided for a best value basis for award and stated that technical evaluation factors were of equal importance to price. 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 following technical evaluation factors were provided in descending order of importance: Potential for Efficient Layout Energy Efficiency Location Physical Characteristics Past Performance Offers were received from five firms, including HG and Mountain States Leasing-Libby (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, and best and final offers (BAFO) were received from HG, MSL, and two other offerors. The contracting officer selected MSL's proposal for award based upon the firm's higher technical score, given there was only a minimal price difference between the proposals. HG protested that the Forest Service failed to evaluate MSL's proposed layout in accordance with the stated SFO requirements regarding the location of the computer room. Specifically, HG complained that the Forest Service had not evaluated MSL's proposal to situate the telecommunications room within the space containing the computer equipment. We agreed and sustained HG's protest on this basis. HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572, et al., Oct. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 123 at 5. We recommended that the Forest Service amend the SFO to state its actual requirements regarding the location of the computer room vis-a-vis the microwave equipment and radio transmitters, and reopen negotiations with the competitive range offerors to allow them an opportunity to respond to the amended solicitation. On October 31, in response to our decision, the Forest Service amended the SFO to change the occupancy date from March 1 to July 1 and to delete references to microwave equipment. The agency also reopened the competition, requesting BAFOs from HG, MSL, and another firm. Prior to the closing date for receipt of BAFOs, HG protested the terms of the amended solicitation. Specifically, HG complains that the Forest Service had no reasonable basis to change the required occupancy date and to delete references to microwave equipment; the protester asserts that these changes were made in bad faith to favor MSL in the competition. The Forest Service responds that because of delays caused by HG's earlier protest a March 1 occupancy date was not realistic for firms, such as MSL, that would be required to do construction or remodeling. The agency estimated that award would not be made until mid-December and that this would not allow sufficient time for construction or remodeling to meet the original occupancy date, particularly considering the severe winter conditions usually experienced in Libby. The delayed occupancy date would, in the agency's view, be less restrictive of competition.