Simborg Development, Inc., B-283538, December 7, 1999

B-283538 Dec 07, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that source selection decision was unreasonable on the basis that there was inadequate information in the record to support the agency's rationale for the decision is denied where. Which was consistent with contemporaneous evaluation documentation and otherwise credible. Simborg principally argues that there is inadequate documentation in the record to support the reasonableness of the source selection. Award was to be made on a best value basis. The evaluation was to be conducted in two phases. Five proposals were received and were evaluated initially by the three-member source selection evaluation board (SSEB) to determine whether they met various SFO minimum requirements. View Decision Matter of: Simborg Development, Inc. File: B-283538 Date: December 7, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Simborg Development, Inc. protests the award of a lease to Highwoods Properties, Inc. under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 8FL0209, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office and related space in Jacksonville, Florida. Simborg principally argues that there is inadequate documentation in the record to support the reasonableness of the source selection. We deny the protest. As amended, the SFO sought offers to enter into an initial lease term of 10 years, with two renewal options of 5 years each, for 76,000 to 78,280 net usable square feet (nusf) of space to be used by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Customer Service Centers. SFO at 4-5; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. Award was to be made on a best value basis, with price significantly less important than the technical factors. SFO at 48. The evaluation was to be conducted in two phases. Five proposals were received and were evaluated initially by the three-member source selection evaluation board (SSEB) to determine whether they met various SFO minimum requirements. COS at 3; Agency Report, Tab 23, Letter from Contracting Officer to Awardee 1 (Aug. 20, 1999). Following written discussions and oral presentations, the proposals were evaluated under the following phase I factors (weighted on a 100-point scale): (1) quality of the site (35 percent); (2) security (35 percent); and (3) building amenities (30 percent). SFO at 48; COS at 2; Agency Report, Tab 6, Discussions with Highwoods, at 1-2, and Tab 14, Discussions with Simborg, at 1-16. Highwoods's proposal received 97.06 points, while Simborg's received 89.42 points. /1/ Agency Report, Tab 21, Evaluations of Phase I Proposals, at 1, 17; GAO Telephone Conference, Nov. 12, 1999. Three of the proposals were included in the competitive range, including those of Simborg and Highwoods. Agency Report, Tab 23, Letter from Contracting Officer to Awardee 1 (Aug. 20, 1999). These proposals then were evaluated under the following phase II factors (weighted on a 100-point scale): (1) building configuration and efficiency of space layout (50 percent); and (2) past performance (50 percent). SFO at 50; COS at 2. Highwoods's proposal received 92.15 points and Simborg's 83.15 points. Agency Report, Tab 22, Evaluations of Phase II Proposals, at 1, 20. The phase I and II points were combined and divided by two to arrive at an overall technical ranking. SFO at 48; GAO Telephone Conference with Parties, Nov. 12, 1999. These rankings were as follows: Offeror Technical Score Price (net present Price per year for value per nusf) 10-year lease term Highwoods 94.61 points $11.05 $1,400,871.90 Simborg 86.29 [deleted] 1,709,635.20 COS at 3; Declaration of Contracting Officer (DCO), Nov. 17, 1999, at 1; GAO Telephone Conference, Nov. 12, 1999; Agency Report, Tab 20, Abstract of Revised Offers, at 3. Highwoods and Simborg then submitted revised proposals. The SSEB evaluated these, but did not change the scores. COS at 2. The SSEB concluded that Highwoods's proposal was technically superior to Simborg's under the quality of site, security, building amenities, and building configuration and efficiency of space layout factors, while Simborg's was superior to Highwoods's under only the past performance factor. COS at 4-5; Agency Report, Tab 21, Evaluation of Phase I Proposals, at 1, 17. Based on Highwoods's technically superior proposal and lower price, the SSEB recommended to the contracting officer, who also served as an evaluator and as the source selection authority (SSA), that award be made to that firm. COS at 4, 8. Based on this recommendation and her own evaluation conclusions, the SSA selected Highwoods for award. Id. at 4-8. This award decision was not contemporaneously documented by the SSA. Rather, the SSA has explained her rationale in a post-protest statement prepared in connection with this protest.