Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture
B-298086,B-298086.3, May 30, 2006
Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture protests the rejection of its offer for failure to meet the location amenities requirement in solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 05-019, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office space for the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Bristol challenges GSA's evaluation of its proposed amenities.
We deny the protest.
B-298086; B-298086.3, Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture, May 30, 2006
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.
1. Elimination of protester's offer from competitive range was unobjectionable where agency reasonably concluded that protester's offered building did not meet solicitation requirement for provision of employee service-related amenities within stated walkable distance.
2. Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's offer based on undisclosed criteria and tenant's dislike of neighborhood is denied where record shows evaluation was conducted in accordance with solicitation requirements.
Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture protests the rejection of its offer for failure to meet the location amenities requirement in solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 05-019, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office space for the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
The SFO sought up to 74,870 rentable square feet for STB, to be located in the Central Employment Area of Washington, D.C. The SFO provided as follows regarding the location amenities:
A variety of inexpensive and moderately priced fast food and/or eat in restaurants must be located within 2,500 walkable linear feet [WLF] and other employee services such as retail shops, cleaners, banks, etc., must be located within 2,500 [WLF].
SFO para. 1.3(c).
The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a matter within the reasonable exercise of discretion of the procuring agency. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and subsequent competitive range determination, we will not evaluate the proposals anew in order to make our own determination of their acceptability or relative merits; rather, we will examine the record to determine whether the documented evaluation was fair, reasonable, and consistent with the evaluation criteria. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993,
Even if the SFO requirement applied only to the entrance to Union Station, GSA's measurement, as explained above, indicated that
Specifically, during the evaluation, the contracting officer first sought specific information from
We conclude that the agency's actions establish that Bristol's offer was rejected based on a reasonable evaluation; the agency's investigation established a lack of sufficient employee service amenities within the required proximity of Bristol's building, which fully supports the reasonableness of the contracting officer's determination that Bristol's offer was unacceptable and not capable of becoming acceptable.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
 In its
 Our conclusion is not changed by the fact that GSA recently awarded