Dr. Rishi Saxena

B-416500 Aug 30, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dr. Rishi Saxena, of Nashville, Tennessee, protests the award of a lease to Brown Cat Development, LLP, of Valdosta, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA248-17-R-0564 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the lease of a building to house a community-based outpatient clinic in Valdosta, Georgia. The protester argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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:  Dr. Rishi Saxena File:  B-416500 Date:  August 30, 2018 David A. Rose, Esq., The Rose Consulting Law Firm, LLC, for the protester. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq, Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection for award of a lease is denied where record shows agency found that protester’s offered building failed to meet a material solicitation requirement such that it was ineligible for award, and protester has not argued or demonstrated that the agency’s conclusion was incorrect or unreasonable. DECISION Dr. Rishi Saxena, of Nashville, Tennessee, protests the award of a lease to Brown Cat Development, LLP, of Valdosta, Georgia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA248-17-R-0564 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the lease of a building to house a community-based outpatient clinic in Valdosta, Georgia.  The protester argues that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP anticipates the award, on a best-value tradeoff basis, of a lease for a 10-year base period (a 5-year firm period[1] and an additional 5-year period) and an additional 5-year option period, considering price and the following non-price considerations, in order of importance:  quality of location, quality of building/layout design, and past performance.  RFP at 4, 16-17.  The RFP advised that proposals would be assigned technical and risk ratings, and that the non-price considerations were collectively significantly more important than price.  RFP at 16.  As is relevant to this decision, the RFP required offerors to propose buildings that had a minimum of 13,165 contiguous net usable square feet (NUSF) of space.  RFP at 3. The agency received a number of proposals in response to the solicitation and established a competitive range of two, consisting of the protester and the awardee.  The agency engaged in discussions with the offerors and solicited, obtained, and evaluated final proposal revisions.  On the basis of that evaluation, the agency selected Brown Cat, concluding that the building offered by the protester did not meet the solicitation’s requirement for a minimum of 13,165 contiguous NUSF of space.  Agency Report (AR) exh. 8, Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) at 6-7. The agency advised the protester of its selection decision on February 22, 2018.  After requesting and receiving a debriefing, the protester filed an agency-level protest with the contracting officer.  In response to that protest, the agency advised that it would review its evaluation of proposals.  The agency revisited its evaluation of proposals and concluded that there were some minor errors in the assignment of risk ratings to the protester’s proposal, but ultimately concluded that none of those minor errors affected the agency’s selection decision.  AR, exh. 8a, Addendum to the PNM.  After being advised of the agency’s affirmation of its selection decision and requesting and receiving a debriefing, Dr. Saxena filed the instant protest. In his initial protest, Dr. Saxena took issue with several of the weaknesses found in his proposal and identified in the agency’s debriefing letter, and also argued that the cost premium associated with award to Brown Cat was not justified.  The agency filed its report with our Office, and in response to that report, Dr. Saxena’s comments focused on a number of findings identified in the individual evaluators’ score sheets that were provided as part of the agency report.  However, Dr. Saxena has not challenged the agency’s fundamental finding that his proposed building does not meet the solicitation’s minimum requirement for a building that has at least 13,165 contiguous NUSF of space.  As noted, the record shows that Dr. Saxena’s proposal was found by the evaluation team to be unacceptable because it did not meet the requirement for 13,165 contiguous NUSF of space.  AR, exh.