SAMS El Segundo, LLC, B-291620; B-291620.2, February 3, 2003

SAMS El Segundo, LLC, B-291620; B-291620.2, February 3, 2003 TITLE: SAMS El Segundo, LLC, B-291620; B-291620.2, February 3, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291620; B-291620.2 DATE: February 3, 2003 ********************************************************************** SAMS El Segundo, LLC, B-291620; B-291620.2, February 3, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: SAMS El Segundo, LLC File: B-291620; B-291620.2 Date: February 3, 2003 William A. Roberts III, Esq., David M. Southall, Esq., Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Eric J. Marcotte, Esq., and Scott A. Schipma, Esq., Winston & Strawn; and Mark R. Hartney, Esq., Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory, for LA Air Force Base SMC, LLC, an intervenor. John D. Inazu, Esq., and James A. Harley, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Accounting Office has bid protest jurisdiction to consider protest where, notwithstanding the concomitant sale of government real property, the transaction includes the procurement of property or services by the government. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated selected offeror's technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 3. Where solicitation provides for evaluation of past performance on the basis of projects completed within the 5 years preceding the closing date for receipt of proposals, agency properly elected not to consider selected offeror's past performance outside this 5-year period. 4. Protest challenging agency's source selection decision is denied where the record shows that the decision was reasonable and consistent with the stated *best value* evaluation criteria; the source selection authority reasonably determined that the proposals were technically equal, notwithstanding the assigned evaluation ratings, and that the selected offeror's proposal represented a lower overall cost to the government. DECISION SAMS El Segundo, LLC (SES) protests the selection of LA Air Force Base SMC, LLC (Kearny) under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Air Force Space Command, Department of the Air Force, for the Systems Acquisition Management Support (SAMS) project.[1] SES argues that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals as well as the agency's selection decision in favor of Kearny were improper. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND Section 2861 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (the Act), Pub. L. No. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000), authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, by sale or lease, all or part of the real property at Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB), California; the Act also provides that the only consideration that the Air Force can receive for the conveyed real estate is *the design and construction on [unconveyed] property . . . of one or more facilities to consolidate the [SMC] mission and support functions.* As originally enacted, the statute also established that if the consideration received by the Air Force (i.e., the value of the facility constructed) exceeded the value of the real property conveyed, then the agency could *lease back* the facility from the developer for a period up to 10 years, with the Air Force taking title to the facility at the end of the lease period. Id. S: 2861(c). On July 17, 2001, the Air Force issued an RFP for the SAMS project. The initial RFP stated, in broad terms, the agency's desire to exchange up to 57 acres of LAAFB real property for approximately 580,000 square feet of office space. [2] Phase I RFP at 3. The RFP also informed offerors that the selection process for the SAMS project would occur in three phases. In Phase I, the Air Force intended to select no more than five offerors who demonstrated the highest probability of success.[3] In Phase II, in which offerors were to submit detailed business and technical proposals for the actual execution of the SAMS project, the Air Force intended to select the offeror proposing the best value to the agency. Phase I RFP, app. D, SAMS Source Selection Process, at 4. In Phase III, the agency planned to conduct final negotiations with the selected offeror to finalize the remaining financial contingencies and to complete the administrative details of implementing all agreements for award to the selected offeror.