CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC (2CA1644)

B-423215 Mar 10, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC, a small business of New York, New York, protests the terms of request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 2CA1644, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the lease of office space. The protester challenges certain terms of the RLP as unduly restrictive of competition or otherwise failing to adequately reflect the agency's requirements. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC File: B-423215 Date: March 10, 2025 Gordon N. Griffin, Esq., Roza Sheffield, Esq., and Richard J. Ariel, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Marilyn M. Paik, Esq., and Aaron Zambrano, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging terms of a lease solicitation as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the record shows that the provisions are reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s legitimate needs. 2. Protest challenging a lease solicitation’s area of consideration is dismissed where the protester fails to establish that it is an interested party to challenge the area of consideration where its building is within the area and the protester effectively argues for more restrictive specifications. DECISION CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC, a small business of New York, New York, protests the terms of request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 2CA1644, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the lease of office space. The protester challenges certain terms of the RLP as unduly restrictive of competition or otherwise failing to adequately reflect the agency’s requirements. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The RLP, issued on October 22, 2024, seeks proposals for the lease of office space for the Federal Public Defender (FPD) in Los Angeles, California. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. FPD’s current office space in Los Angeles is in two buildings, located at 321 East 2nd Street and 200 South San Pedro Street, with the total leased space comprising 66,981 American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA) Occupant Area (ABOA) square feet.[1] Id. at 1‑2. FPD occupies the entirety of 321 East 2nd Street, comprising 50,130 ABOA square feet over 10 floors. Id. at 1; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. At 200 South San Pedro Street, FPD occupies 16,851 ABOA square feet over two full floors and the majority of a third floor. COS at 2; MOL at 2. The protester is a co‑owner of the building at 321 East 2nd Street. COS at 1‑2. The RLP, which the agency has amended four times, seeks proposals for the lease of a minimum of 57,558 ABOA square feet to a maximum of 60,435 ABOA square feet of contiguous space in a single building for a term of 15 years and two 5‑year options located in a defined area of Los Angeles. COS at 1; Second Supp. COS at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 62, RLP at 4. As initially published, the RLP required that the leased space be located on no more than four floors, which the agency then amended to five floors. RLP at 70; AR, Tab 63, RLP amend. No. 1. The agency has further amended the RLP to remove the maximum number of floors requirement. Second Supp. COS at 2; AR, Tab 71, RLP amend. No. 4 at 1. The RLP states that the agency will award the lease on a lowest‑priced, technically acceptable basis. RLP at 20. Proposals in response to the RLP were due on December 6, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time. Id. at 15. On December 6, the protester timely protested to our Office, challenging various terms of the RLP as unduly restrictive of competition. That same day, the protester also submitted a proposal in response to the RLP. COS at 5. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the RLP’s square footage requirement, single‑building requirement, and area of consideration, contending that those requirements are not reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs.[2] Protest at 8‑12. As our Office previously has stated, the determination of a contracting agency’s needs and the best method of accommodating them are matters primarily within the agency’s discretion. BHB Ltd. P’ship & Indiana Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, B‑417760 et al., Oct. 9, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 356 at 4. Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, that is, challenges both the restrictive nature of the specification and the agency’s need for the restriction, the agency has the responsibility of establishing that the restrictive specification is reasonably necessary to meet its legitimate needs. Id. The adequacy of the agency’s justification is ascertained through examining whether the explanation is reasonable and withstands logical scrutiny. Id.