Command and Control Construction (36C26020R0031)

B-419567 Apr 22, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Command and Control Construction, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Fargo, North Dakota, protests the award of a lease contract to G2 Construction, of Fairbanks, Alaska, under request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 36C26020R0031, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the lease of approximately 15,000 square feet of office space in Fairbanks, Alaska. The protester contends that the agency should have found the awardee's proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Command and Control Construction, LLC File:  B-419567 Date:  April 22, 2021 Mathias C. Baasch, for the protester. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., and Natica Chapman Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is denied because the record shows that the alleged evaluation error did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION Command and Control Construction, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Fargo, North Dakota, protests the award of a lease contract to G2 Construction, of Fairbanks, Alaska, under request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 36C26020R0031, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the lease of approximately 15,000 square feet of office space in Fairbanks, Alaska.  The protester contends that the agency should have found the awardee’s proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RLP, issued on April 15, 2020, provided for the award of a fully-serviced 20-year lease of office space in Fairbanks, Alaska.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4; Tab 3, RLP at 1, 16.  The agency sought to lease between 15,111 and 15,867 American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association Office Area square feet (ABOA SF) of contiguous space and 50 surface parking spaces for use as a community based outpatient clinic.[2]  RLP at 1; COS at 1.  The solicitation advised that the lease would be awarded to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  RLP at 17. The agency received timely proposals from six offerors, including the awardee and the protester.  AR, Tab 7, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 2.  Based on initial evaluations, the agency concluded that all six proposals contained deficiencies, and, as a result, the agency opened discussions with all six offerors.  Id. at 2-3.  Following receipt and evaluation of revised proposals, the agency concluded that each offeror corrected their initial proposal deficiencies, and assessed all six proposals as technically acceptable.  Id. at 5-6.  The agency eliminated one of the six proposals from further consideration for award, however, on the basis of its price.  Id. at 6.  The remaining five proposals, including the proposal submitted by Command and Control, ranged in price from $25.48 to $46.19 per USF.  Id.at 6-7.  The protester submitted the highest-priced proposal at $46.19 per USF.  Id. at 7. Based on its evaluation, the agency selected for award the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal submitted by Offeror A at a price of $25.48 per USF.  AR, Tab 7, SSDD at 7.  Offeror A refused to accept the award, however, instead attempting to revise its price upward to $29.37 per USF.  Id.  The agency rejected Offeror A’s attempt to revise its price, and moved on to the second lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal submitted by the awardee, G2 Construction at a price of $29.20 per USF.  Id. at 7-8.  On January 29, 2021, the agency notified the protester of the award decision, and this protest followed.  AR, Tab 8, Email from Agency to Protester at 1. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency should have evaluated the awardee’s proposal as technically unacceptable because the awardee’s property fails to meet two solicitation requirements.  Protest at 1.  Specifically, the protester contends that the awardee’s proposed property is not located within “attractive, prestigious and professional surroundings[,]” and does not have building entrances “connected to public sidewalks by continuous, accessible sidewalks.” [3]  Id., citing RLP §§ 1.05 A, 1.05 B, 1.05 C.1.  Substantively, the agency responds that the protester is misinterpreting the solicitation, and the awardee’s proposal met the requirements of the solicitation as correctly interpreted.  Id.