BNUMBER:  B-276889 
DATE:  July 1, 1997
TITLE: American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections, B-276889, July
1, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections

File:     B-276889

Date:July 1, 1997

Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and William E. Conner, Esq., Petrillo & 
Associates, for the protester.
Mark Langstein, Esq., and Alden F. Abbott, Esq., Department of 
Commerce, for the agency.
Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation for conference facilities limited competition to 
hotels within a five block area of the main agency headquarters, the 
protester's proposal was properly excluded from the competitive range 
after agency evaluators determined that the protester's offered 
facility was located beyond the geographic area specified in the 
solicitation.  

DECISION

American Connecting Source d/b/a Connections protests the award of a 
contract to the J.W. Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C., by the 
Department of Commerce pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 
52-DKEX-7-90016, issued to procure conference facilities for the 
Bureau of Export Administration's Annual Update Conference on 
strategic trade issues.  Connections argues that its proposal, 
offering conference facilities at the Grand Hyatt Washington Hotel, 
was improperly excluded from the competitive range because the agency 
erroneously concluded that the hotel was located outside the 
geographic limitation set forth in the RFP.[1]

We deny the protest.

The Commerce Department issued the RFP here on January 31, 1997, 
seeking conference and hotel facilities and associated services for 
the July 1997 conference, and for 2 option years.  The statement of 
work specified the characteristics of several needed rooms, including 
three rooms capable of accommodating at least 350 conferees, and one 
capable of accommodating 250 conferees.  The RFP also stipulated that 
offered facilities be located no more than five blocks from the main 
building of the Department of Commerce.  Specifically, section B-9 of 
the RFP provided:

     "The conference facility must be a walking distance of no more 
     than five blocks to the Department of Commerce, 14th and 
     Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20230.  This 
     restriction is critical due to the high level of participants by 
     the Department of Commerce upper management and employees, and 
     reimbursements for cab fare and metro subway fare would be 
     costly.  Also, the use of public transportation would not allow 
     for time flexibility crucial to program format and would increase 
     participants' time away from the office."

The Department received two proposals by the March 11 closing date:  
one from the J.W. Marriott, located at the corner of 14th and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., across the street from the main Commerce 
building; one from Connections, offering the Grand Hyatt, located at 
10th and H Streets, N.W.  Although the agency evaluated Connections's 
proposal on each of the three evaluation factors set forth in the RFP, 
it did not evaluate Connections's price after the evaluators 
determined that the proposal was unacceptable and should be excluded 
from the competitive range because it offered a facility more than 
five blocks from the Department of Commerce.  At the conclusion of the 
evaluation, award was made to the J.W. Marriott at a price of $552,120 
for the base year and both option years.  This protest followed.

Connections argues that the agency wrongly concluded that the Grand 
Hyatt is located more than five blocks from the Department of 
Commerce.  As discussed below, Connections's urged interpretation 
appears to be based on both an unlikely pedestrian route, and an 
unreasonable assumption that certain kinds of streets should not be 
counted as forming blocks.  Alternatively, Connections argues that the 
solicitation's five-block requirement was ambiguous and therefore 
should not be strictly construed.  In this regard, Connections 
contends that city blocks in downtown Washington are of various sizes, 
and urges that our Office adopt a definition of a block based on a 
length of distance equal to one of the longest blocks Connections can 
identify.  We are unpersuaded by both arguments.

As a preliminary matter, Connections's arguments that the term "block" 
is imprecise and should be broadly interpreted, are, in essence, 
claims that the solicitation was ambiguous on its face.  In this 
regard, Connections urges that the RFP's five-block requirement should 
not be interpreted literally, but should instead be viewed as a 
requirement that offered facilities be within an easy walking 
distance, or alternatively, should be interpreted with some fixed 
distance assigned for each block.  While we are not convinced by this 
record that the term "block" as used here is ambiguous, any 
uncertainty about this issue was apparent from the face of the 
solicitation and thus constituted a patent ambiguity.  In such 
situations, offerors may not simply make unilateral assumptions 
regarding the meaning of patently ambiguous terms in the RFP and then 
expect relief when the agency does not act in the manner the offeror 
assumed.[2]  Rather, the offeror must challenge the alleged ambiguity 
prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(1) (1997); Christie Constructors, Inc., B-271759; B-271759.2, 
July 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  87 at 6.  

With respect to Connections's substantive challenge to its evaluation, 
we note first that agencies may properly restrict procurements to 
offerors within a specified geographical area if the restriction is 
reasonably necessary for the agency to meet its minimum needs.  NFI 
Management Co., B-240788, Dec. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  484 at 2.  Where, 
as here, a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation 
requirement like this one, we read the solicitation as a whole and in 
a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the solicitation.  Dr. 
Carole J. Barry, B-271248, June 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  292 at 4.

Our review of the record--supplemented by our own familiarity with the 
Washington, D.C. area--leads us to conclude that the agency correctly 
determined that the Grand Hyatt is more than five blocks from the 
Department of Commerce.  The Grand Hyatt is located on a block bounded 
by 10th and 11th Streets, on the east and west, respectively, and by G 
and H Streets, on the south and north, respectively.  The Department 
of Commerce is located on a block bounded by 14th and 15th Streets on 
the east and west, respectively, and by Constitution and Pennsylvania 
Avenues on the south and north, respectively.  Our review of maps 
provided by the protester and the agency, including one distributed by 
the Grand Hyatt itself, shows that any route between these two 
locations--using any definition of a block in common parlance--is at 
least six blocks in length.[3]  In fact, it appears that the more 
likely pedestrian routes between these two locations would involve 
traversing seven blocks or more.

Connections argues, however, that the Grand Hyatt is only five blocks 
from the Department of Commerce if one takes a route departing from 
the east side of the Grand Hyatt--away from the Department of 
Commerce--south on 10th Street across G, F, and E Streets, and then 
across Pennsylvania Avenue to the intersection of 10th and 
Constitution Avenue.  This route then follows Constitution west to the 
south entrance of the Commerce Department on Constitution between 14th 
and 15th Streets--the entrance farthest away from the Grand Hyatt.  In 
order to claim that this route is only five blocks, Connections counts 
blocks as follows:  on 10th from G to F (1 block), F to E (1 block), E 
to Pennsylvania (1/2 block), and Pennsylvania to Constitution (1/2 
block); then on Constitution from 10th to 12th (1 block), and from 
12th to 14th (1 block).  Not only is Connections's argument based on 
an unlikely pedestrian route (since it posits exiting the hotel from 
the side away from the Commerce Department and entering the Department 
on the side farthest from the hotel), but Connections calculates a 
five-block total for this route by not counting Pennsylvania 
Avenue--which bisects 10th between E and Constitution--and because 
11th and 13th Streets do not bisect Constitution Avenue--creating two 
very long blocks.  Simply put, we consider the protester's 
"five-block" route an unpersuasive substitute for the agency's 
reasonable determination that Connections was offering a hotel outside 
the five-block limit.  Collington Assocs., B-231788, Oct. 18, 1988, 
88-2 CPD  para.  363 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Connections also challenges the agency's exclusion of its proposal 
on the basis that it does not meet the requisite space requirements, 
and other evaluation conclusions.  Since we find that the agency 
properly determined that Connections's offered hotel was outside the 
geographic proximity requirement, and Connections thus is not eligible 
for award, we need not reach Connections's other challenges to its 
evaluation.  

2. We note, for example, that in the protester's comments on the 
agency report, a representative of the protester acknowledges that she 
was concerned that the Grand Hyatt might be outside the five-block 
limitation in the RFP.  As part of an effort to ascertain this fact, 
the record shows that this individual contacted the Washington, D.C. 
Convention and Visitors Association and was erroneously advised by 
them that the Grand Hyatt was within five blocks of the Department of 
Commerce.  While we understand that the protester relied to its 
detriment on this erroneous information, these events do not provide a 
basis to overturn the agency's evaluation decision.  See Thresholds 
Unlimited, Inc.--Recon., B-248817.3, Aug. 12, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  102 at 
2 (protester's reliance on erroneous advice from a Congressional 
office about our timeliness rules did not excuse an untimely protest 
filing).

3. The term "block" has two meanings relevant to this discussion.  A 
block is "a usually rectangular space (as in a city) enclosed by 
streets and occupied by or intended for buildings" and a block is "the 
distance along one of the sides of such a block."  Webster's Ninth New 
Collegiate Dictionary (1989).