BNUMBER:  B-271757
DATE:  July 22, 1996
TITLE:  Halse Enterprises

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Halse Enterprises

File:     B-271757

Date:     July 22, 1996  

Kristie Kirby for the protester.
Allen W. Smith, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly awarded contract to furnish office 
space to firm that failed to offer cleaning and snow and ice removal 
services as required by the solicitation is denied where the agency 
included a cost factor for the services in the evaluated cost of the 
awardee's proposal, and retained protester's proposal in the 
competitive range notwithstanding several deficiencies; by 
disregarding deficiencies in both proposals, agency treated both 
offerors equally.  

DECISION

Halse Enterprises protests the award of a contract to Wiggin 
Construction under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. R1-96-2, issued 
by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, to lease office, 
shop, storage and wareyard space in Sheridan, Montana.  Halse, the 
incumbent contractor, argues that Wiggin failed to offer cleaning and 
snow and ice removal services as required by the solicitation, and 
that its offer therefore could not be accepted for award.

We deny the protest.

As amended, the solicitation requested offers to enter into a 10-year 
lease, with two 5-year option periods, for 2,200 square feet of office 
space in compliance with The Americans with Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), 1,875 square feet of warehouse, 
garage and pesticide storage space, and 6,000 square feet of secured, 
fenced and paved wareyard space in Sheridan.  The SFO required the 
lessor to furnish:  (1) designated off-street visitor parking for five 
vehicles, including one space sized and designated for handicapped 
parking and one pull-through space of sufficient size to accommodate 
recreation vehicles and truck/trailer combinations and permit 
ingress/egress without backing up; (2) janitorial services and 
supplies; and (3) snow and ice removal services.  The solicitation 
generally provided for award to be made to the offeror whose 
technically acceptable proposal offered the "technical/cost 
relationship [that] is most advantageous to the Government."  The SFO 
listed four specific technical evaluation factors:  (1) potential for 
efficient layout; (2) energy efficiency; (3) location; and (4) 
physical characteristics, environment and safety.     

Two proposals--Halse's and Wiggin's--for a total of three sites were 
received by the closing time; all were included in the competitive 
range.  Following discussions, Agriculture requested best and final 
offers (BAFO).

Based on its evaluation of BAFOs, the agency determined that Wiggin's 
proposal of a new building at its site No. 1 offered the best value to 
the government.  Specifically, the evaluated annual cost of Wiggin's 
site ($53,405.75 based on requested space, including a $3,000 
evaluation factor added to account for Wiggin's failure to offer the 
required janitorial services and supplies and snow and ice removal) 
was $3,356.75 lower than the annual cost of Halse's proposed site 
($56,762.50, including a $2,000 evaluation factor added to account for 
its offer of only 4,000 square feet of wareyard space instead of the 
6,000 square feet required).  In addition, Wiggin's site received a 
"good+" rating, while Halse's building (currently occupied by the 
agency) received only a "fair" rating.

Halse argues that it was improper for Agriculture to accept Wiggin's 
proposal inasmuch as it failed to comply with the solicitation 
requirement for the lessor to furnish janitorial services and supplies 
and snow and ice removal.

As noted above, however, Halse's proposal likewise failed to comply 
with a solicitation requirement--for 6,000 square feet of wareyard 
space--and the agency, as it did for Wiggin's proposal, added an 
evaluation factor to account for the cost to the agency of the missing 
item rather than simply reject the proposal as unacceptable.  In 
addition, Halse offered on-street visitor parking that failed to 
comply with the SFO requirement for five off-street visitor parking 
spaces, including one handicapped accessible and one pull-through 
space for recreation vehicles and truck/trailer combinations.  
Further, Agriculture reports that Halse's building does not comply 
with the disabled access provisions of the ADAAG.

Since Agriculture treated the offerors equally with regard to the 
technical deficiencies in their proposals by retaining their proposals 
in the competitive range and considering them in the best value 
cost/technical tradeoff, notwithstanding the proposals' deficiencies, 
and since the agency's minimum needs are actually being satisfied by 
the award, there is no basis for sustaining Halse's protest concerning 
the agency's waiver of the requirement for the lessor to furnish 
janitorial services and supplies and snow and ice removal.  See C3, 
Inc., 70 Comp. Gen. 313 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  230; Integral Sys., Inc., 
70 Comp. Gen. 105 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  419;  Intelligent Env'ts, 
B-256170.2, Nov. 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  210; O.V. Campbell & Sons 
Indus., Inc., B-236799 et al., Jan. 4, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  13; Emulex 
Corp., B-236732, Dec. 27, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  600.

Halse also maintains that the agency could not reasonably find 
Wiggin's proposal more advantageous than Halse's proposal.

This argument is without merit.  Halse bases its position on the 
assumption that the total cost of its proposal was lower than the cost 
of Wiggin's when the cost of furnishing the janitorial services and 
supplies and snow and ice removal not offered by Wiggin is considered.  
However, although Halse estimated in its proposal its annual cost of 
providing janitorial services and supplies as $4,600 and the cost of 
snow and ice removal as $7,248, for a total cost that was $8,800 more 
than the $3,000 evaluation factor applied to Wiggin's proposal, we 
find that the record supports the agency's determination that Halse's 
estimate was significantly overstated.  In this regard, we consider it 
significant that the current annual cost to the agency for snow 
removal is only $250.[1]  Accepting this as the likely future cost to 
the agency for snow and ice removal, Wiggin's proposal remains low 
even using Halse's estimated cost for cleaning services and supplies.  

Further, Halse has not shown that Agriculture's conclusions with 
respect to its own building were unreasonable.  Again, Halse's 
proposal, unlike Wiggin's, did not offer the required 6,000 square 
feet of wareyard space or the required off-street and designated 
handicapped visitor parking, and the floor plan for Halse's building 
did not indicate the required compliance with the ADAAG.  In addition, 
unlike the flexibility afforded by Wiggin's proposed space, the 
efficient use of Halse's space would be disrupted by the presence in 
the middle of the space of two offices that would not be included in 
the lease.  Furthermore, while Wiggin offered a new, energy-efficient 
building, Halse would not commit itself in writing to replacing or 
upgrading the existing heating, ventilation and air conditioning 
system, which the agency had found to be expensive to operate and 
inadequate as to heating/cooling capacity.  Also, the agency 
considered the proposed stucco and brick facade of Halse's building to 
be less consistent with the Forest Service's traditional image than 
the wood siding proposed by Wiggin.  

Given the evaluated technical and cost advantages of Wiggin's proposed 
building, the agency reasonably determined that Wiggin's proposal 
would be most advantageous to the government.  The award therefore was 
proper.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States 

1. We further note that Agriculture reports, and Halse has not 
disputed, that Halse currently pays only $3 per day for janitorial 
services.