Acquest Uniland LLC, B-280518, October 13, 1998

B-280518 Oct 13, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The record does not show that the agency's determinations lack a reasonable basis or are otherwise improper. Protest allegations that the procuring agency improperly evaluated proposals are denied. 2. Only those firms whose submittal was given a "go" would be invited to submit offers. Was judged most advantageous to the government. The prospectus funding for this project was listed in the solicitation as $1. The combined weight of the technical factors was more important than evaluated prices. Price was to be evaluated on the basis of the total annual rent per square foot (SF) over the life of the anticipated lease expressed as a net present value. Offers were requested from seven firms. View Decision Matter of: Acquest Uniland LLC File: B-280518 Date: October 13, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Acquest Uniland LLC protests the award of a lease to The Penrose Corporation under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. SLA 97005, issued by the General Services Administration for office and related space to house the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) offices in New Orleans, Louisiana. Acquest alleges various improprieties regarding the evaluation of proposals, and challenges the selection of Penrose's higher technically rated, higher evaluated price offer for award. We deny the protest. The SFO, issued on October 1, 1997 and as amended, contemplated the award of a design-build-lease for an initial term of 20 years, with two 10-year options. The solicitation sought offers for the design and construction of a new building and parking facilities and provided detailed specifications for architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, utilities and maintenance requirements. SFO Sec. 4-7 at 24-42. In addition, the SFO listed several minimum and unique requirements including, a 100-foot setback of the building from a vehicle resistant barrier, and a total of 165 secured, inside parking spaces. SFO Amend. No. 3, Sec. 1.3(a), (b) at 1. The solicitation specified an occupancy date of June 1, 1999. /1/ SFO Sec. 1.1, 1.5, 1.6 at 5. Initial project team information would be reviewed by the agency on a "go/no go" basis to determine if the firms' submittals meet the stated minimum requirements of the SFO. Only those firms whose submittal was given a "go" would be invited to submit offers. SFO Sec. 1.5 at 5, Sec. 2.2.1 at 9. Award would be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was judged most advantageous to the government, price and other award factors considered. SFO Form 3516 Sec. 10 at 5. The prospectus funding for this project was listed in the solicitation as $1,890,000. /2/ SFO Amend. No. 3, Sec. 1.3(f) at 2. Proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three weighted technical factors: (1) schematic design/quality of building [DELETED]; (2) project team experience and qualifications [DELETED]; and (3) management plan [DELETED]. The first factor consisted of the following five equally weighted subfactors: (a) architecture; (b) structural systems; (c) mechanical; (d) electrical systems; and (e) quality of construction. The second factor consisted of three equally weighted subfactors: (a) key personnel qualifications; (b) past performance; and (c) design excellence. SFO Sec. 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 at 10-12. The combined weight of the technical factors was more important than evaluated prices, but evaluated prices would become more important as proposals became more equal in technical merit. SFO Sec. 2.2 at 9. Price was to be evaluated on the basis of the total annual rent per square foot (SF) over the life of the anticipated lease expressed as a net present value. SFO Sec. 1.11 at 6-7. GSA received initial project team submittals from 13 firms; of these, offers were requested from seven firms, including Acquest and Penrose. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection official, forwarded the offers received to the agency's source selection evaluation board for evaluation. Oral presentations and written discussions were held with each offeror during the week of April 20. /3/ During discussions, Acquest was informed of numerous deficiencies in its proposal and the protester was asked, for example, the following: Please address/clarify the following in your revised offer: proposed rendering of your submittal building does not match your proposed site plan/building outline; visitor parking could be reduced to approximately 20 to 30 spaces; concerns over pedestrian traffic into main entrance with vehicles, possible congestion; and separation not necessary for Automotive/Radio Maintenance Facility and garage. Please read and submit all that is required by paragraph 2.2.4, Management Plan, of referenced SFO with your revised offer.