Interproperty Investments, Inc., B-281600, March 8, 1999

B-281600 Mar 08, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency subsequently canceled the solicitation because MSHA was undergoing a reorganization. As long as they were close to the city limits. The SFO stated that the area of consideration was limited to sites "[w]ithin the city limits of Barbourville. Interproperty further contends that the failure to solicit the protester was deliberate. In the course of which she specifically asked whether there were any SFO's pending and was told that there were none. As far as he was concerned. She was merely handling housekeeping issues and that he would not expect her to make such an inquiry on behalf of Interproperty. This is accomplished only where (1) all qualified vendors are allowed and encouraged to submit offers on federal procurements. View Decision Matter of: Interproperty Investments, Inc. File: B-281600 Date: March 8, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Interproperty Investments, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bimble under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 7KY0036, issued by the Southeast Sunbelt Region of the General Services Administration (GSA). Interproperty asserts that the agency deliberately excluded Interproperty, the incumbent lessor, from the competition. We deny the protest. The protester currently leases some 13,000 square feet of office space to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). In late 1996, the agency issued a SFO for a new lease (17,575 square feet), to which the protester responded; the agency subsequently canceled the solicitation because MSHA was undergoing a reorganization, which made its requirements uncertain. Letter from MSHA to Contracting Officer (Apr. 23, 1997). The protester did not object, in view of the agency's decision to extend the existing lease for another year, with two 1-year option periods. Affidavit of Gregory Parsons, Nov. 25, 1997, at 2. In January 1998, MSHA submitted a new request to lease 17,035 square feet of office space in the Barbourville, Kentucky area. The agency placed advertisements in the February 5 Mountain Advocate, a local Barbourville paper, and in the Sunday, February 8 Cincinnati Enquirer, which circulates in northern Kentucky. The advertisement requested responses by March 2, and, by that date, the agency had received five responses, offering nine sites. The incumbent did not respond. MSHA surveyed the sites and identified five of them as acceptable; MSHA also advised the agency that sites outside the city limits would be acceptable, as long as they were close to the city limits. Market Survey Summary, Apr. 13, 1997; Letter from Contracting Officer to Protester at 2 (Nov. 20, 1998) (response to Agency-level Protest). The agency produced a mailing list including the five firms that had responded to the newspaper advertisements and issued them copies of the SFO, dated May 14, 1998. Although MSHA had approved the Bimble site, outside the Barbourville city limits, during its survey, the SFO stated that the area of consideration was limited to sites "[w]ithin the city limits of Barbourville, Kentucky." SFO Sec. 1.2. The SFO, Sec. 1.4, required that the space or site offered be located "not less than 150 feet and not more than 300 feet from a main thoroughfare" to ensure visibility by the local police, and advised offerors that, to eliminate any perception of a conflict of interest, the agency would accept no offers from coal companies or environmental groups. By the June 30 closing date, all five firms had responded. The agency conducted negotiations and requested best and final offers, which all offerors submitted in early October. On the basis of price, the agency selected the Bimble site for award. After the selection of Bimble, but before the agency issued an official notification of award, the protester learned of MSHA's plans to move to the Bimble building and contacted the contracting officer. In a telephone conversation of October 22, with an Interproperty representative, the contracting officer confirmed the agency's plans, advising the protester of his efforts to advertise the procurement and declining to delay award to allow Interproperty to submit an offer. On October 22, 1998, the agency awarded the lease to Bimble, and Interproperty filed a protest with the agency and subsequently to our Office. Interproperty contends that the SFO did not comply with the requirement for full and open competition because the agency denied Interproperty, the incumbent lessor, the opportunity to submit an offer. Interproperty further contends that the failure to solicit the protester was deliberate. The president of Interproperty asserts that, when the agency canceled the solicitation in 1997, he requested to be notified of future solicitations. Affidavit of Gregory Parsons, Nov. 25, 1997, at 2.