Bannum Inc.

B-414336 May 15, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1256-CS, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for residential community corrections center services in the vicinity of Benton Harbor or Kalamazoo, Michigan. Although the property the protester proposed to perform the contract had been sold to a third party, the protester argues that agency should have provided the protester with additional time to find a new site location since it was the agency's delay in making an award which resulted in the protester losing the right to use the property. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release with no redactions. Decision Matter of:  Bannum, Inc. File:  B-414336 Date:  May 15, 2017 Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., Joseph A. Camardo, Esq., and Justin T. Huffman, Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. Sarah Bloom, Esq., Seth Bogin, Esq., and William D. Robinson, Esq., Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s rejection of proposal is denied where the agency discovered that the facility proposed by the protester to perform the contract was no longer available--it had been sold to a third party more than a year prior to the protester’s elimination from the competition--and the agency was not required to provide the protester with additional time to find a new facility. DECISION Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1256-CS, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for residential community corrections center services in the vicinity of Benton Harbor or Kalamazoo, Michigan.  Although the property the protester proposed to perform the contract had been sold to a third party, the protester argues that agency should have provided the protester with additional time to find a new site location since it was the agency’s delay in making an award which resulted in the protester losing the right to use the property. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on September 24, 2014, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract based on fixed prices for a base year and four 1‑year option periods for residential reentry center (RRC) services and home confinement services for federal offenders located in the Benton Harbor or Kalamazoo, Michigan area.  RFP at 3-4.  RRC contractors provide services, including employment and residence development, as well as other self-improvement opportunities.  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement at 1.  Contractors are required to furnish all personnel, management, equipment, supplies, and services necessary to operate a RRC.  Id. The RFP provided for award to the offeror with the proposal representing the best value to the government based on an evaluation of past performance, technical/management, and price.  RFP at 36.  As relevant, the technical/management factor consisted of several subfactors, including “facility” and “site location.”  RFP at 37-38. Under these subfactors, the agency was to evaluate the location of the facility proposed by an offeror and the validity of the offeror’s right to use it.  Id.  Regarding the latter, the RFP required offerors to provide documentation supporting their right to use the property they proposed.  RFP at 33.  The RFP permitted offerors one request to change an initially proposed facility.  RFP at 34.  Such requests, however, had to be received by the contracting officer within 60 days of the initial proposal submission.  Id.  The extended closing date for the receipt of initial proposals was December 22, 2014.  The RFP referenced an anticipated award date of June 3, 2015.  RFP at 9.  In its proposal, Bannum included a purchase agreement for its proposed property.  Bannum Proposal at 11.  The agreement indicated that it was contingent upon, among other things, the protester’s award of the contract under the RFP.  Id. at 28.  Under the agreement, the owner of the property retained the right to show the property to other buyers, and if an offer was received, the protester would have 10 days to remove the contingency.  Id.