B-311314.2, Trammell Crow Company, June 20, 2008

B-311314.2 Jun 20, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Trammell Crow Company (TCC) protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a lease to CS Master V, LLC (Stonebridge), under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 07-018, for office and related space to be occupied by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. TCC alleges several evaluation and other improprieties in the procurement. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-311314.2, Trammell Crow Company, June 20, 2008 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: Trammell Crow Company File: B-311314.2 Date: June 20, 2008 Ronald A. Schechter, Esq., Gary E. Humes, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., and Patricia L. Stasco, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for the protester. Fernand A. Lavallee, Esq., Jeffrey R. Keitelman, Esq., J. Phillip Ludvigson, Esq., and Kim K.S. Pagotto, Esq., DLA Piper, for the intervenor. Elizabeth A. Hall, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where agency improperly credited awardee's proposed building with availability of certain future amenities; while solicitation required third party evidence that amenities –will exist— by date of occupancy, awardee only provided in its proposal its own commitment that it would provide the amenities in its building by occupancy date. 2. Protest that agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions with the protester is sustained where agency failed to raise significant weaknesses associated with protester's key personnel during discussions. DECISION Trammell Crow Company (TCC) protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a lease to CS Master V, LLC (Stonebridge), under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 07-018, for office and related space to be occupied by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C.TCC alleges several evaluation and other improprieties in the procurement. We sustain the protest. The solicitation, which anticipated the award of a 15-year lease, provided for a –best value— award based on four evaluation factors (with subfactors): location (access to DOJ facilities; access to Metrorail; and access to amenities); building characteristics (quality of building architecture, building systems, construction, and finishes; planning efficiency and flexibility; and access to natural light); key personnel and past performance (key personnel and past performance); and price. Agency Report (AR) , Tab 5, SFO, at 20-21. The location factor was approximately equal in importance to the building characteristics factor, and each was significantly more important than key personnel/past performance; the technical factors combined were significantly more important than price. Id.In addition, the SFO stated that the phased occupancy of the building was to begin no earlier than January 1, 2010, and was to be completed no later than June 30, 2010. Id. at 8. Following the submission and evaluation of initial offers, a round of discussions, and the submission and evaluation of final offers, Stonebridge's offer was among the highest rated (overall rating of highly successful plus) and offered the lowest price (annual present value [DELETED] per square foot), while TCC's offer was both lower rated (overall rating of successful plus) and higher priced ([DELETED] per square foot, for a total price premium of $16.6 million on a net present value basis). AR, Tab 24, at 42, 43. The final evaluation ratings were as follows:[1] Factor Subfactor TCC Stonebridge Location (45%) Access to DOJ (20%) Superior Minus Successful Plus Access to Metro (15%) Highly Successful Highly Successful Access to Amenities (10%) Highly Successful Minus Highly Successful FACTOR RATING Highly Successful Highly Successful Minus Building Characteristics (45%) Quality of Building/ Architecture (20%) Successful Superior Planning Efficiency/ Flexibility (20%) Marginal Highly Successful Access to Light (5%) Highly Successful Superior FACTOR RATING Successful Minus Superior Minus Key Personnel/ Past Performance (10%) Key Personnel (5%) Successful Superior Past Performance (5%) Highly Successful Successful FACTOR RATING Successful/Highly Successful Highly Successful OVERALL RATING SUCCESSFUL PLUS HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL PLUS AR, Tab 23, at 1.