B-298953.2, GPA-Buffer, LP, March 21, 2007

B-298953.2 Mar 21, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GPA-Buffer, LP requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs GPA-Buffer incurred in connection with filing and pursuing a protest challenging the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision to enter into a sole-source agreement with the state of Florida to lease real property on which to construct office space for the U.S. Army Southern Command (SouthCom) headquarters. We deny the request. View Decision B-298953.2, GPA-Buffer, LP, March 21, 2007 Decision Matter of: GPA-Buffer, LP File: B-298953.2 Date: March 21, 2007 Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., for the protester. Barry D. Segal, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reimbursement of protest costs is denied where record fails to establish that the agency delayed taking corrective action in the face of clearly meritorious protest. DECISION GPA-Buffer, LP requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs GPA-Buffer incurred in connection with filing and pursuing a protest challenging the General Services Administration's (GSA) decision to enter into a sole-source agreement with the state of Florida to lease real property on which to construct office space for the U.S. Army Southern Command (SouthCom) headquarters. We deny the request. In August 2005, GSA and the state of Florida entered into a memorandum of agreement under which the state agreed to make a 40-acre site available, at no cost, for the subsequent construction of office space to house SouthCom's headquarters.[1] The memorandum provided that the state of Florida would subsequently conduct a competitive procurement for the actual construction of the required office space. Agency Report (AR), exh. 22. The memorandum also provided, –it is anticipated that SouthCom will seek and obtain the required Congressional Title 10 authorization for this proposed project.—[2] Id. at 2. In November 2005, GSA prepared a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOTFOC) for its plan to non-competitively enter into a lease agreement with the state of Florida for the 40-acre site.[3] Among other things, the JOTFOC concluded that –[n]o other source has 40 acres of available land at no cost.—[4] AR exh. 42, at 3. On April 28, 2006, the Army submitted the statutorily required notice to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services, providing various information regarding the proposed acquisition.[5] In its notice to the Committee, the Army described its requirements, explained that its needs had outgrown the available space in the various offices located throughout the greater Miami area, noted that eight of the nine current locations do not meet DOD anti'terrorism and force protection standards established after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and concluded: –No suitable government-owned or controlled space is available in the Miami area to satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, the Department of the Army requests authority to . . . lease the new build-to-suit facility on state land.— AR exh. 50, at 2. On September 26, 2006, GSA published a –Notice of Intent to Procure Using Other Than Full and Open Competition— on the FedBizOpps Internet website, stating: –[GSA] proposes to enter into a noncompetitive lease procurement using other than full and open competition with the state of Florida for housing of the long term space needs of the United States Southern Command . . . in Doral, Florida.— GSA Motion to Dismiss, Oct. 16, 2006, exh. 1. GSA explains that the September 26 notice –was issued to inform the public of GSA's intent to use the State offered no cost land.— Contracting Officer's Statement at 6. On October 6, GPA filed a protest challenging the bases for the agency's determination to obtain the state's 40-acre site as a sole-source procurement. On November 13, the agency responded to GPA's protest, filing a report with this Office responding to the protester's various arguments[6] and maintaining that the agency's sole-source determination complied with applicable law and regulations. On November 16, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services responded to the Army's earlier notice of the proposed acquisition, addressing various aspects of the Army's proposed actions. Among other things, the Committee stated: After careful review of the proposal, existing facilities, and headquarters requirements, the Committee believes that a replacement headquarters facility for USSOUTHCOM is indeed necessary.