B-298276, King Construction Company, Inc., July 17, 2006

B-298276 Jul 17, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights King Construction Company, Inc. protests as overly restrictive the terms of solicitation for offers (SFO) No. PKY-01-LO-06, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for lease of build-to-suit office space for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Louisville, Kentucky. The protester asserts that the SFO is overly restrictive because it requires experience constructing Class A office space, to the exclusion of other relevant experience; it requires experience with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) projects; and it contains redundant qualifications for an offeror's team members. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298276, King Construction Company, Inc., July 17, 2006 Decision Matter of: King Construction Company, Inc. File: B-298276 Date: July 17, 2006 James E. Krause, Esq., Regan Zebouni&Walker, PA, for the protester. Gary F. Davis, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging terms of solicitation for lease of build-to-suit office space as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where agency demonstrates a reasonable basis for required approach. DECISION King Construction Company, Inc. protests as overly restrictive the terms of solicitation for offers (SFO) No. PKY-01-LO-06, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for lease of build-to-suit office space for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Louisville, Kentucky. The protester asserts that the SFO is overly restrictive because it requires experience constructing Class A office space, to the exclusion of other relevant experience; it requires experience with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)[1] projects; and it contains redundant qualifications for an offeror's team members.[2] We deny the protest. The procurement in this case is being conducted using the two-phase design-build procedures authorized under 41 U.S.C.A. sect. 253m (West Supp. 2006) and set out in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3, which contemplate issuance of two different solicitations for phase I and phase II of a project. Consistent with those procedures, the solicitation here, for phase I of the project, calls for submission of proposals limited to addressing the offeror's technical approach and qualifications. After evaluation of those proposals, the agency will select three to five offerors considered the most highly qualified, who then will be invited to submit proposals under phase II, addressing the specific design of the project and price. The solicitation was based on a model SFO jointly developed by the FBI and GSA for 56 prospective lease construction projects for the FBI to be delivered over 5 years, using a standardized evaluation scheme for what, square footage variations aside, the agency considers well-defined and repeatable requirements. This requirement was for 120,197 rentable square feet of Class A office space[3] and 115 parking spaces on a pre-selected site. The SFO lists the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: development team and key personnel experience; management plan; development team's past performance; and design approach narrative. The SFO requires the offeror's –development team— (which includes the principals of the offering entity who will have primary management or supervisory responsibilities, the architectural and/or engineering firm(s), and the general contractor) and key personnel (i.e., those individuals who –are employed by these firms and who will have direct responsibility for hands-on activities required in relation to this project and its resultant lease—) to submit information regarding their respective experience. SFO sect. 2.5(A)(1)(a). A –more favorable evaluation— will be given to each team member who –demonstrate[s] experience in performing projects of the size, nature and complexity required by the SFO.— SFO sect. 2.5(A)(1)(b). Similarly, the SFO called for submission of past performance information regarding the offeror and its key personnel, with –more favorable evaluations— to be given to those who –demonstrate successful past performance in delivering and managing projects of the size, nature and complexity described in the SFO.— SFO sect. 2.5(C)(1)(b).