Bannum Inc.

B-415227 Dec 01, 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-200-1235-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for residential reentry center (RRC) services for federal offenders in the vicinity of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Although Bannum has lost the right to use the proposed property, the protester argues that the 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 redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Bannum Inc. File:  B-415227 Date:   December 1, 2017 Justin T. Huffman, Esq., Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., and Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. Seth Bogin, Esq., and Sarah Bloom, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's rejection of a proposal is denied where the protester did not possess the right to use the facility proposed by the protester to perform the contract 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-200-1235-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for residential reentry center (RRC) services for federal offenders in the vicinity of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.  Although Bannum has lost the right to use the proposed property, the protester argues that the 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 April 18, 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 RRC and home detention services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 000004.[1]  RRC contractors were to provide services, including employment and residence development, as well as other self-improvement opportunities, to assist federal offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.  RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) at 000015.  Additionally, contractors would be required to furnish all personnel, management, equipment, supplies, and services necessary to operate an RRC.  Id. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following three factors, listed in descending order of importance:  past performance, technical/management approach, and price.  Id. at 000242.  The technical/management factor consisted of several subfactors, including, as relevant here, site location and facility.  Id. at 000245-46.  Under these subfactors, the agency was to evaluate the proposed site location; consider the validity of the offeror's right to use the proposed site and its zoning approval; and assess the soundness and credibility of the offeror's plan for ensuring the proposed facility would be operationally available within 120 days of contract award.  Id.  Regarding site location, the RFP required offerors to provide documentation, such as a lease or options to lease, supporting its right to use the property it proposed.  Id.  at 000238.  The RFP permitted offerors one request to change an initially proposed facility.  Id.  Such requests, however, had to be received by the contracting officer within 60 days of the initial proposal submission.  Id.  The amended closing date for the receipt of initial proposals was July 1, 2014.[2]  AR, Tab 4, RFP, Amend. 1, at 000001.  In its proposal, Bannum included a contingent lease agreement for its proposed property.  AR, Tab 5, Bannum Technical/Management Proposal at 000011.  The lease indicated that it was contingent upon, among other things, Bannum's selection for award of the contract under the RFP.  Id. at 000020.  The lease agreement also gave the landlord the right to continue to market the property to other potential parties for sale or lease during the contingency period, and gave Bannum a right of first refusal to purchase or lease the property if a third party negotiated a sale or lease of the property.  Id. at 0000021.  The lease also stated that if contingencies were not met by August 1, 2014, Bannum had the option to extend the lease for an additional 90 days.  Id.