[Protest Alleging Unduly Restrictive Provisions in GSA Solicitation]

A firm protested the allegedly unduly restrictive provisions of a request for proposals issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the operation and maintenance of a federal office building. The protester contended that one evaluation factor, based on corporate reputation in the locality of the office building, unfairly penalized firms that had not worked in that area. GSA believed that a firm's reputation in the local area was reasonably related to the probability of successful contract performance. Contracting agencies have broad discretion in determining the needs of the government and the methods of best accommodating those needs, as long as they do not unduly restrict competition. GAO found that the GSA evaluation approach gave firms which performed work in the office building locality an evaluation advantage. Therefore, GAO concluded that the evaluation approach used went beyond the agency's needs and had the effect of unduly restricting competition. GSA could have met its needs through the use of more general criteria. Although GAO sustained this portion of the protest, it did not recommend corrective action because the protester would not have been in line for award even if this factor were eliminated. The protester also objected to the manner in which GSA combined several services in a single contract, since the agency had not previously procured the services in this combination. GAO has held that it is for the contracting agency to determine whether to procure by means of a total package approach or break out portions of its total requirement. In this case, the protester failed to show that the agency decision was unreasonable. Finally, the protester complained that another qualification criterion restricted competition and duplicated other evaluation criteria. Since GSA found that the protester satisfied this qualification criterion, the protester was not prejudiced by the criterion. Accordingly, the protest was sustained in part, denied in part, and dismissed in part.