B-148306, SEP. 12, 1962

B-148306, SEP. 12, 1962

TO MR. EDWIN B. KOONCE:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM DATED MARCH 14, 1962, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. R7- 23-62, ISSUED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 1961, INVITING BIDS FOR FURNISHING 57,423 SQUARE FEET OF NET USABLE AIR-CONDITIONED OFFICE FLOOR SPACE, IN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, FOR USE BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, OR SUCH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY AS THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MIGHT DESIGNATE.

AS A BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST IT WAS STATED IN YOUR TELEGRAM THAT THE SITE "RECOMMENDED" BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AT "DEWEY AND MAIN" STREETS DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS DENIED A PERMIT FOR LACK OF PARKING; ALSO, THAT THE MANION BUILDING, COVERED BY THE SECOND LOW BID, DOES NOT MEET THE AWARD FACTORS. BY LETTER DATED MARCH 21, 1962, WE ADVISED YOU THAT UPON DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE WOULD ADVISE YOU OF OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER.

WE ARE NOW IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER DATED AUGUST 8, 1962, FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REPORTING THAT THAT AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED UNDER THE INDICATED INVITATION FOR BIDS. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION THAT THE PROTESTS RECEIVED BY OUR OFFICE WERE DIRECTED AGAINST THE LOW BID SUBMITTED BY LIPPMAN MILLER AND G. R. FOLGER, AND THE SECOND LOW BID SUBMITTED BY NOE RAINEY MANION, THE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS MAKING THE PROTESTS BEING GENERALLY OPPOSED TO ANY RELOCATION OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY TO ANY AREA IN WHICH ADEQUATE PARKING FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. CERTAIN OF THE PROTESTS WERE BASED UPON THE CLAIM THAT THE SPACE OFFERED IS IN A HIGHLY CONGESTED AREA AND, FURTHER, THAT THE PROPERTY OFFERED IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE BID OPENING.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IT APPEARS UNNECESSARY TO SET FORTH ALL OF THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR THE DECISION TO REJECT ALL BIDS. WE MAY SAY, HOWEVER, THAT UPON AN ANALYSIS OF THE TWO BIDS MENTIONED IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION THAT BOTH WERE NONRESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION. THE AGENCY REPORTED THAT THE MILLER-FOLGER BID WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BID EVALUATION, AND THAT THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY JOE RAINEY MANION WERE NOT ADEQUATE TO PERMIT THE ANALYSIS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF THE INVITATION.

OUR OFFICE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS IS EXTREMELY BROAD AND THAT ORDINARILY WE WILL NOT QUESTION SUCH ACTION. THIS INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO READVERTISE IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO JUSTIFY. IN THE INSTANT MATTER, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE SATISFIED BY THE PROPERTY OFFERED, THE SHOWING MADE BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION IS SUCH AS, IN OUR OPINION, TO FULLY JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO REJECT ALL BIDS.