Silver Investments, Inc. (57-9104-19-001)

B-419028 Oct 26, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Silver Investments, Inc., of Red Bluff, California, protests the award of a lease to Cornerstone Community Bank, of Red Bluff, California, under request for lease proposal (RLP) No. 57-9104-19-001, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, for office space. The protester contends that the award is improper because the awardee's office space did not meet the solicitation's requirements for parking space. We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Silver Investments, Inc. File:  B-419028 Date:  October 26, 2020 Robert Martin, Silver Investments, Inc., for the protester. Melissa McClellan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Emily R. O’Hara, Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s issuance of a lease contract is dismissed as untimely where protester’s communications with agency did not constitute an agency-level protest, and the protest was filed more than 10 days after the notice that formed the basis of its protest was received by protester.  DECISION   Silver Investments, Inc., of Red Bluff, California, protests the award of a lease to Cornerstone Community Bank, of Red Bluff, California, under request for lease proposal (RLP) No. 57-9104-19-001, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, for office space.  The protester contends that the award is improper because the awardee’s office space did not meet the solicitation’s requirements for parking space.   We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest. BACKGROUND The USDA issued the RLP on October 9, 2019, for office space within Red Bluff, California.  Req. for Dismissal, Tab 1, RLP at 5, 10.  The RLP contemplated the award of the lease for 20 years based on the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer submitted.  Id. at 5, 27.  As relevant here, the RLP indicated that the agency’s minimum requirements for the leased property included 6,465 square feet of office space and 59 total parking spaces.  Id. at 5.  The protester submitted its proposal before the proposal due date.  Req. for Dismissal at 1.  On March 18, 2020, the agency informed the protester that its initial offer did not meet the RLP’s minimum square footage requirement for office space.  Req. for Dismissal, Tab 3, Notice of Award at 2.  The agency requested that the protester provide a revised proposal within five days. Req. for Dismissal, Tab 2, Examples of Pre-Award Correspondence at 2.  In that same correspondence, the protester was notified that if no response was received within that timeframe, the agency would assume that the protester no longer had any “interest in pursuing this procurement.”  Id.  Although the protester never submitted a revised proposal, it sent several emails to the agency between March and June contending that its “building m[et] all the requirements set forth in the request” and voicing concerns about the other offerors’ properties.  Id. at 3‑7.  On July 29, the agency provided the protester with notice that award of the lease had been made to Cornerstone.  Req. for Dismissal, Tab 3, Notice of Award at 2. On August 5, the protester sent an email to various contracting personnel at the USDA.  Req. for Dismissal, Tab 10, Email from Protester to Agency, Aug. 5, 2020 (Aug. 5 email).  In the email, the protester indicated its concern with the USDA’s decision to award the lease to Cornerstone.  Id.  It noted that the awardee’s rental space did “not even come close to meeting the minimum requirements” of the solicitation.  Id.  The protester listed all the ways the property failed to meet the solicitation requirements.  Id.  Lastly, the protester stated that it “will be taking legal action because [the agency] did just what [the protester] thought [it] would do, put out minimum requirements then act like they don’t matter and lease ground that does not meet the requirements.”  Id.  The protester ended the email by stating, “[B]e advised that I will be filing [an] action and naming the people in the fraud.”  Id. at 2.  The protester also left several voicemails for one of the contracting officers on August 6.  Voicemails from Protester to Agency, Aug.