Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Justice
Disposition: Protest denied.
Protest that agency improperly considered firm’s inability to accept sex offenders at its proposed residential reentry center is denied where solicitation contemplated consideration of an offeror’s proposed site and the impact that the location would have on satisfying the requirements of the solicitation and complying with the requirements of state and local law.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
Bannum asserts that the agency applied an unstated factor in evaluating its proposal under the site location subfactor of the technical/management factor. GAO states that while agencies are required to evaluate proposals based solely on the factors identified in the solicitation, an agency properly may apply evaluation considerations that are not expressly outlined in the RFP where those considerations are reasonably and logically encompassed within the stated evaluation criteria.
The agency properly considered Bannum’s inability to house sex offenders in its evaluation of the firm’s proposal under the site location subfactor. In this connection, the RFP provided that the agency would consider the suitability of the offeror’s proposed site for, among other things, the responsiveness of the site to the statement of work’s (SOW) proximity requirements, as well as whether the site was appropriately zoned and whether the site’s zoning posed any potential risk to the government. The record shows that the underlying reason that Bannum cannot accept sex offenders is because its facility is located within 2,000 feet of seven different schools or daycare centers that it identified in its “Local Area Concerns Within a Half Mile Radius” attachment to its proposal, and because Iowa state law prohibits the acceptance of sex offenders at facilities located within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility. While the RFP did not expressly provide that the agency would take into consideration whether an offeror’s facility could accept sex offenders, read as a whole, it did provide for evaluation of the location of the facility and the potential impacts a facility’s location would have on the suitability of the site in terms of meeting the agency’s requirements and complying with state and local law. The protest is denied.