Hines Chicago Investments, LLC, B-292984, December 17, 2003

B-292984 Dec 17, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where record shows that option pricing was in fact considered. 2. Protest that award was improper because. Is denied where protester was informed during the procurement that agency's interpretation of requirement would permit offerors to propose a vacant floor for future expansion. 3. Agency was not required to hold discussions regarding areas of protester's proposal that were weak. Price (which was significantly less important than the technical factors). /1/ Following the submission and evaluation of initial proposals. Higgins's proposal was rated the highest under the technical factors and offered the second lowest price. While Hines's was rated the second highest under the technical factors and offered the lowest price. View Decision Hines Chicago Investments, LLC, B-292984, December 17, 2003 * REDACTED DOCUMENT DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hines Chicago Investments, LLC protests the award of a contract to Higgins Development Partners, LLC under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-05B-17010, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the construction and lease of a field office for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Chicago. Hines alleges several evaluation and other improprieties in the procurement. We deny the protest. The solicitation, which anticipated the award of a 14-year lease, with two 10-year option terms, provided for a "best value" award based on evaluation of (in descending order of importance) design concepts for building configuration and expansion; building systems; exterior and interior design; management plan; and price (which was significantly less important than the technical factors). /1/ Following the submission and evaluation of initial proposals, multiple rounds of discussions, and the submission and evaluation of best and final offers (BAFO), Higgins's proposal was rated the highest under the technical factors and offered the second lowest price, while Hines's was rated the second highest under the technical factors and offered the lowest price. Higgins's proposal was selected as the best value to the government and this protest followed. Hines raises a number of arguments concerning the propriety of the evaluation and other aspects of the procurement. We have reviewed the record and find that Hines's arguments are without merit. We discuss the most significant arguments below. OPTION YEAR PRICING The solicitation provided that the agency would perform a present-value price evaluation for the base and option periods based on the annual price per square foot of office area. Hines asserts that, in making the award decision, GSA considered only its $0.80 base period cost advantage over Higgins. This assertion is not supported by the record, which indicates both that the agency performed a present-value analysis of the offered prices for the base and option years for the offerors and that, in determining the best value proposal, the contracting officer based her conclusions on the present value for the base and option periods. In this regard, the contracting officer stated as follows: Higgins' offer was the second lowest, but included significant benefits judged against the lowest offer and therefore represents the greatest value to the Government. . . . The price differential of the Higgins proposal compared to the lowest price proposal is [DELETED] /2/ per occupiable square foot, per annum, Present Value calculation, considering all price components for the firm term including the renewal option periods. Based on actual dollars, the price differential is [DELETED] per net rentable square foot based on the rental rate offered by the lower price proposal. This price differential is justified to select Higgins because of their far technically superior offer. Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 57-58. Hines's argument seems to be based solely on the last portion of the quoted contracting officer finding. However, there is no basis for disregarding the rest of the statement and, reading it as a whole, it is clear that the agency did evaluate the present value of the prices proposed for the base and option periods, and did consider the differences in those prices when selecting Higgins for award. MANDATORY SOLICITATION REQUIREMENT The solicitation required the space offered to be vertically and horizontally contiguous. Hines protests that Higgins's proposal did not meet this requirement because Higgins proposed to leave one floor vacant for future expansion. This argument is without merit. GSA asserts, and Hines does not dispute, that during discussions in June 2003 the contracting officer informed Hines that it interpreted this requirement to allow offerors to propose a floor of vacant space for future expansion. Agency Report (AR) at 12.