HG Properties A, LP

HG Properties A, LP TITLE: HG Properties A, LP BNUMBER: B-290416; B-290416.2 DATE: July 25, 2002 ********************************************************************** HG Properties A, LP, B-290416; B-290416.2, July 25, 2002 Decision Matter of: HG Properties A, LP File: B-290416; B-290416.2 Date: July 25, 2002 Thomas W. Rochford, TRS Design & Consulting Services, for the protester. Dennis Foley, Esq., Philip Kauffman, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Lease modification changing location of site for construction of offered building space remains within the scope of the underlying lease, so that resolicitation of agency's space requirements is not necessary, where substituted site meets solicitation's geographical requirements and modification does not change lease price, performance period, basic responsibilities of parties to the lease, or the nature and purpose of the lease, so that overall effort under modified lease remains essentially the same as was contemplated under the original solicitation for offers. DECISION HG Properties A, LP protests the modification of lease No. V541R-62, awarded to Premier Office Complex, Inc. (POC) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the provision of building space for a VA medical facility in Canton, Ohio. HG, the incumbent lessor of building space for the agency's current medical facility in the area, chose not to compete for the lease it is now challenging. HG contends, however, that a recompetition of the lease is now necessary due to an alleged out-of-scope modification to POC's lease. Specifically, HG contends that the lease was improperly modified to allow a change to the site of construction of the lessor's offered building space; HG argues that the change in location is a cardinal change outside the scope of the lease awarded to POC which, according to HG, should be viewed as an improper sole-source award. In its supplemental protest, HG also raises, among other contentions, numerous challenges to the agency's initial award of the underlying lease to POC. We deny the protests. On January 26, 2001, the agency issued solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 541-040-01 for approximately 15,000 net usable square feet of building space for medical/office space located within a delineated geographic area in Canton, Ohio. Five amendments were issued to that solicitation to extend its closing date in an effort to delay the procurement until HG could resolve an ongoing eminent domain action against a property it would have liked to offer in response to the SFO. That SFO, however, was ultimately cancelled. Several months later, under a new solicitation, SFO No. 541-018-02, the agency again set forth its detailed needs for building space for its medical facility. Although HG was sent a copy of the new SFO, the firm did not submit a proposal in response to it; the eminent domain action against HG's property was not withdrawn until after the date offers were due under the SFO. The agency did receive offers in response to the SFO from two other firms, including POC; the offers were deemed acceptable and found to offer reasonable prices. The SFO set out both general and highly specific space requirements to meet a variety of stated agency needs. As to the location of offered buildings, the SFO provided only general requirements that were to be met. No specific property location was identified; rather, offered properties had to be located within a designated area of consideration, defined in the SFO by reference to certain city boundaries. Such properties had to be located in a prime commercial office district with professional surroundings, be reasonably accessible to public transportation and highways, and include a minimum of 125 on-site parking spaces. SFO �� 1.1--1.3. The SFO, however, did include detailed and numerous architectural requirements to be met by the offered building space, and the SFO also included specific requirements for the lessor to provide certain specialized services--security services and custodial services--utilities, maintenance, and environmental management. Particular design requirements were set out for waiting and examination rooms, as well as office space for personnel, and space for equipment storage. The SFO also set forth highly specialized specifications for specific medical treatment and laboratory areas required within the proposed facility. SFO �� 4.0--10.18. The leased space was to be free of hazardous materials. SFO � 8.9.