B-400049, Barnesville Development Corporation, June 30, 2008

B-400049 Jun 30, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Barnesville Development Corporation protests the rejection of its offer under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 7FL2052, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the lease of office space for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Melbourne, Florida. The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its offered building for failing to comply with an allegedly ambiguous solicitation requirement pertaining to floor space dimensions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-400049, Barnesville Development Corporation, June 30, 2008 Decision Matter of: Barnesville Development Corporation File: B-400049 Date: June 30, 2008 Michael J. Brutz for the protester. John C. Ringenhausen, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging rejection of offer for the lease of office space is denied where the record shows that the offer failed to meet solicitation requirements pertaining to floor space dimensions; protester's argument that the agency should be regarded as having waived the floor space dimension requirements by including in the solicitation another, allegedly inconsistent requirement regarding layout of space is without merit given that the solicitation provisions at issue can be read in a manner that gives effect to both provisions. DECISION Barnesville Development Corporation protests the rejection of its offer under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 7FL2052, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the lease of office space for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Melbourne, Florida. The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its offered building for failing to comply with an allegedly ambiguous solicitation requirement pertaining to floor space dimensions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation sought offers for the lease of a minimum of 18,508 square feet of office space. Of relevance to this protest, the solicitation advised prospective offerors that –the overall building floor-plate cannot exceed a 2:1 ratio (space should be no more than twice as long as it is wide),— SFO sect. 1.4;[1] the solicitation further instructed that all of the space was to be on the same floor.[2] The SFO also set forth a series of internal space requirements (square footage and special requirements pertaining to particular rooms to be located in the space), and advised that the actual dimensions of the internal spaces would be shown on the government design intent drawings to be provided to the lessor after award.[3] Offers were due by December 14, 2007. The protester, which is the incumbent lessor, submitted an offer on December 11, 2007. The offer was accompanied by a sketch depicting a plan for adding on to the protester's existing building to meet the required square footage, which had increased since award of the preceding lease. The offer included the following explanation of relevance to this protest: As the incumbent Lessor, the main objective of this proposal is to expand the existing building in such a way as to minimize any disruption to the current activities of this facility while meeting the requirements of the SFO 1.4, in particular the SSA's requirement that the building floor plate be no more than 2 time[s] [as] long as it is wide. Reviewing Section III of [attachment 3 to the SFO,] it is clear that the intent of this unique requirement is to allow for the maximum flexibility for furniture placement with rectangular space and with a large open area. This proposal clearly meets the intent of the requirement in the following ways: 1. The SFO prefers the multipurpose room and storage room to be located contiguous to the main office space. This plan complies with that requirement. 2. By relocating the Manager's and Assistant Manager's offices to the new addition, along with the Interview room and IVT room we free up a large open area providing an efficient layout for the placement of work stations. . . . 3. The open work space created by this arrangement is approximately 90 feet wide and 180 feet long which complies with the –intent— of the 2:1 requirement for efficient furniture layout. * * * * . . . We submit that the deviation contained herein is minor in nature in that it clearly meets the stated –intent— of the 2:1 requirement and would be advantageous to the government in that it will permit the SSA to stay in its current space so the cost and disruption of relocating is eliminated. . . . Protest, exh. B, Barnesville's Proposal, Item 19 Attachment. By letter dated January 18, 2008, the agency's representative notified Barnesville that its offer required revision to be determined acceptable.