Peachtree 25th LLC d/b/a/ American Management Company, B-

Peachtree 25th LLC d/b/a/ American Management Company, B- BNUMBER: B-281185; B-281185.2 DATE: December 4, 1998 TITLE: Peachtree 25th LLC d/b/a/ American Management Company, B- 281185; B-281185.2, December 4, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Peachtree 25th LLC d/b/a/ American Management Company File:B-281185; B-281185.2 Date:December 4, 1998 Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and Daniel A. Silien, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester. John C. Ringhausen, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Services Administration reasonably determined that protester's building was outside "central business area" (CBA) of city of Atlanta, and thus was not entitled to consideration for lease under terms of Executive Order 12072, where it reasonably based CBA boundaries on information from city, and subsequently made independent determination that protester's building was neither in "centralized community business area," nor in "adjacent area of similar character," the two areas that comprise CBA. 2. Since CBA, by definition, is comprised of centralized community business area and similar adjacent areas, agency's independent determination that protester's building was not in adjacent area of similar character, and thus was outside CBA, properly was based on comparison of location of protester's building to centralized community business area rather than to entire CBA. DECISION Peachtree 25th LLC d/b/a/ American Management Company protests the rejection of the offer it submitted in response to solicitation No. 8GA0017, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to lease office space in Atlanta, Georgia for the Small Business Administration (SBA). Peachtree argues that GSA improperly concluded that its offered property is outside the central business area (CBA) in which properties must be located to be considered for award. We deny the protest. The solicitation, reflecting the terms of Executive Order 12072, 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., p. 213, reprinted in 40 U.S.C. sec. 490 (1994), specified that the area of consideration was the CBA of the city of Atlanta. Solicitation at 4.[1] The Executive Order requires that GSA, in leasing office space in an urban area, give first consideration to a city's "centralized community business area" and "adjacent areas of similar character." Section 1-103. The Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) implementing the Executive Order designate this area the CBA. FPMR, Interim Rule D-1, sec. 101-17.205(p)(1), 62 Fed. Reg. 42,071 (1997). In identifying a CBA, GSA is required to consult with local officials, and to consider their recommendations. FPMR, Interim Rule D-1, sec. 101-17-205(d)(1). Peachtree argues that its building should have been found to be within an "adjacent area of similar character," and thus within the CBA and eligible for award.[2] We find nothing improper in GSA's determination that Peachtree's site does not fall within an adjacent area of similar character, and is outside the CBA. GSA's determination in this regard was based primarily on the city's recommendation, which the agency subsequently confirmed through its own analysis. GSA requested the City's Bureau of Planning to define the CBA for purposes of Executive Order 12072 in 1993. In response, the Bureau submitted a map to GSA which identified a central business district shaded green, and a larger "Central Area" which included the green area plus an area shaded pink. Letter from the Director of the Bureau of Planning to GSA (July 12, 1993). In a follow-up telephone call, a representative from the Bureau familiar with the Executive Order explained that, technically, the central business district was the smaller green area, but that it was acceptable to Atlanta for GSA to solicit for office space in the larger central area outlined in pink. GSA Memorandum to File, Aug. 5, 1993. Although the terms used by the Bureau to refer to the areas were different from the terms used in the Executive Order, the Bureau essentially identified a CBA that included a centralized community business area (the green area on the map), and adjacent areas of similar character (the additional pink area).[3] The protester's building is outside the northern boundary of this area, and thus is not in the CBA as defined by the city. When GSA issued the current solicitation, it relied on this information from the city to identify the CBA, resulting in the protester's building being excluded from the competition. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.