• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Sherman Plaza, Inc., B-402310.6, August 4, 2010

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • September 2, 2010
  • DiscussionsProposal Evaluation

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Proposal Evaluation; discussions

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: GAO reviews challenges to an agency’s evaluation of offers only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors and applicable procurement laws and regulations. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Sherman Plaza, Inc. (Sherman) protests the award of a lease by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), under a solicitation for offers (SFO), for office space to be occupied by the VA’s Consolidated Patient Account Center (CPAC).

The SFO sought offers for the award of a 20-year lease for office space in Madison, Wisconsin. Offerors were to propose space in existing buildings that provides 380 dedicated parking spaces, access to public transportation, and other amenities. The SFO stated that the lease would be awarded on a best value basis considering price, technical quality, operations and maintenance plan, and evidence of capability to perform prior to award.

The awardee proposed to provide 389 parking spaces in a two story building, while Sherman proposed 387 parking spaces in a one story building. A five-member technical evaluation board (TEB) assigned point scores for each factor. The awardee received the highest score. Sherman filed four protests challenging the evaluation of offers. The VA subsequently advised GAO that it would take corrective action, including amending the SFO, seeking final revised offers, evaluating the offers, and making a new selection decision.

In accordance with the corrective action, the VA issued an amendment, which revised the award factors and subfactors. The amendment advised offerors that “this is the final submission for this procurement, and there will be no modifications, clarification, negotiations, or discussions upon receipt of your proposal.” Sherman and the original awardee submitted revised offers and the awardee again received the highest score. Sherman’s proposal was the least desirable since it was located within an active retail shopping center on a major highway, which raised concerns about security, parking, and traffic congestion. The awardee’s offer was “far superior” with regard to energy efficiency, and included a more detailed plan for operations and maintenance than any of the other offers.

GAO states that it reviews challenges to an agency’s evaluation of offers only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation factors and applicable procurement laws and regulations. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.

Sherman argued that the awardee’s offer was materially deficient since it did not demonstrate its compliance with the SFO requirement for 380 dedicated parking spaces. Even though the awardee proposed 389 parking spaces, the building housing the parking is shared by two tenants, including one with 20 employees. GAO’s review of the record shows that the awardee did provide a plan and short narrative to show how it would satisfy the SFO parking requirements and that the VA was aware of the other tenant. GAO finds that the agency had a reasonable basis to conclude that the awardee’s offer demonstrated that it would meet the SFO requirements.

Sherman also asserts that: (1) the awardee would have to expand its parking site to meet the needs of both tenants and the expansion would infringe on neighboring floodplain/wetland areas; and (2) the awardee received an almost perfect score under the quality of site evaluation subfactor even though the awardee did not guarantee the minimum 380 parking spaces. However, the VA submitted a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map showing that the offered site was outside the floodplain/wetland areas. The record also indicates that the score assigned under the quality of site evaluation subfactor was based on the facts that the awardee’s property was located by a bus stop, was adjacent to a major highway, was accessible to bike and walking trails, was located near restaurants, and provided a natural setting. GAO finds that Sherman had not shown that the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal was unreasonable.

Next, Sherman asserts that the agency could not reasonably re-award this lease without holding discussions with Sherman. But, the SOF, as modified following the corrective action, stated that the VA would not hold discussions or seek additional submissions. GAO states that Bid Protest Regulations require that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals be filed prior to that time. GAO states that the protest here, which challenges the announced ground rules for the post-corrective action competition, i.e. that it would not hold any further discussions with any offerors, constitutes a challenge to the terms of the solicitation. GAO concludes that the allegations brought by Sherman are untimely. The protest is denied.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Science Applications International Corporation

February 28, 2022

Matter of WRG Fire Training Simulation Systems, Inc.

January 12, 2022

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of Patronus Systems, Inc.

December 3, 2020

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411