Oppenheim Management, LLC

B-417333 Mar 26, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Oppenheim Management, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) exclusion of Oppenheim's proposal from further consideration in a procurement, conducted pursuant to request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 7PA2333, to provide leased space for the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Oppenheim asserts that the agency incorrectly determined that Oppenheim's proposal failed to comply with the solicitation's column spacing requirements, and complains that the agency failed to conduct discussions regarding that requirement. Additionally, Oppenheim asserts that exclusion of Oppenheim's proposal "lacks a rational basis," since its proposed building is capable of meeting the agency's needs. Protest at 2. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision is now authorized for public release. Decision Matter of:  Oppenheim Management, LLC File:  B-417333 Date:  March 26, 2019 Robert C. MacKichan, Jr., Esq., and Gordon Griffin, Esq., Holland & Knight, LLP, for the protester. Julie A. Holvik, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest allegations that, on the face of protester’s submissions, fail to present factually and legally sufficient bases for protest are dismissed.  2.  Post-closing-date protest that challenges the necessity for a solicitation requirement is dismissed as untimely. DECISION Oppenheim Management, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the General Services Administration’s (GSA) exclusion of Oppenheim’s proposal from further consideration in a procurement, conducted pursuant to request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 7PA2333, to provide leased space for the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  Oppenheim asserts that the agency incorrectly determined that Oppenheim’s proposal failed to comply with the solicitation’s column spacing requirements, and complains that the agency failed to conduct discussions regarding that requirement.  Additionally, Oppenheim asserts that exclusion of Oppenheim’s proposal “lacks a rational basis,” since its proposed building is capable of meeting the agency’s needs.  Protest at 2. We dismiss the protest.  BACKGROUND In December 2018, the agency issued RLP No. 7PA2333 to provide leased space for the SSA in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  Protest, exh. A, RLP.  Among other things, the RLP provided that “space between columns and/or walls cannot be less than nineteen (19’) feet.”  Id. at 2.  On December 14, the agency provided a copy of the RLP to representatives of Oppenheim, the incumbent lessor, noting that the SSA’s requirements had been “updated” and specifically advising Oppenheim that:  “given the column spacing requirement [the SSA’s] current space does not meet [the updated] needs.”  Protest, exh. K, E-mail from Contracting Officer to Oppenheim, Dec. 14, 2018. On or before the solicitation’s January 11, 2019 closing date, Oppenheim submitted a proposal in which it, nonetheless, proposed the currently-leased building.  In its proposal, Oppenheim asserted that its building conformed to the column spacing requirement when measuring from east to west--but expressly acknowledged that, measured from north to south, the “columns . . . are less than 19 feet apart.”  Protest, exh. E, Oppenheim Proposal, at 8.  On January 24, the agency sent a letter to Oppenheim, which carried the subject line “Request for Clarifications” and noted that Oppenheim’s proposal contained various “exceptions” to the solicitation requirements.  Protest, exh. F, Agency Letter to Oppenheim, at 1-2.  Oppenheim acknowledges that, thereafter, on January 31, the agency’s contracting officer and Oppenheim’s representative “discussed the column spacing of the [p]roperty.”  Protest at 7.  As a follow-up to these discussions, the contracting officer forwarded to Oppenheim’s representative the floor plan for Oppenheim’s building--which expressly confirmed that the “column spacing measurements” were less than 19 feet.[1]  Protest, exh. H, E-mail from Contracting Officer to Oppenheim Senior Vice President.    On February 5, Oppenheim submitted certain clarifications/revisions to its proposal, but again expressly acknowledged that, measured from north to south, its proposed building’s columns “are less than 19 feet apart.”  Protest, exh.