BNUMBER:  B-277572.4 
DATE:  February 11, 1998
TITLE: HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572.4, February 11, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:HG Properties A, L.P.

File:     B-277572.4

Date:February 11, 1998

Thomas W. Rochford, TRS Design & Consulting Services, for the 
protester.
Patricia Dearing, Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging the amendment of a solicitation for lease of 
office space that delays the requested occupancy date and deletes 
references to microwave equipment is denied where the later occupancy 
date satisfies the agency's needs and accommodates delays caused by a 
prior protest and where the agency had determined that it will have no 
microwave equipment in the office space.

DECISION

HG Properties A, L.P. protests the U.S. Forest Service's amendment of 
solicitation for offers (SFO) No. R1-97-04.  

We deny the protest.

As issued, the SFO requested offers for a 10-year lease with two 
5-year options for office and related space in a new or existing 
building for a Forest Service supervisor's office within or near 
Libby, Montana.  The SFO stated that the space must be ready for 
occupancy by March 1, 1998, and informed offerors that if a different 
occupancy date were proposed, the contracting officer would determine 
if that date would reasonably fulfill the Forest Service's needs.  The 
SFO provided specifications detailing the architectural, mechanical, 
electrical, plumbing, utilities, maintenance, and service 
requirements.  One "special requirement" of the specifications was 
that the computer room space must be located "away from areas housing 
microwave equipment and radio transmitters."

The SFO provided for a best value basis for award and stated that 
technical evaluation factors were of equal importance to price.  The 
proposal preparation instructions required offerors to provide, among 
other things, plans illustrating the space offered, and site plans 
showing the placement of the building on-site, proposed parking, and 
landscaping.  The following technical evaluation factors were provided 
in descending order of importance:

               Potential for Efficient Layout
               Energy Efficiency 
               Location
               Physical Characteristics
               Past Performance

Offers were received from five firms, including HG and Mountain States 
Leasing-Libby (MSL).  HG, the incumbent contractor, offered its 
existing space within the Libby city limits, while MSL offered space 
in a building to be constructed outside the Libby city limits.  
Discussions were conducted, and best and final offers (BAFO) were 
received from HG, MSL, and two other offerors.  The contracting 
officer selected MSL's proposal for award based upon the firm's higher 
technical score, given there was only a minimal price difference 
between the proposals.

HG protested that the Forest Service failed to evaluate MSL's proposed 
layout in accordance with the stated SFO requirements regarding the 
location of the computer room.  Specifically, HG complained that the 
Forest Service had not evaluated MSL's proposal to situate the 
telecommunications room within the space containing the computer 
equipment.  We agreed and sustained HG's protest on this basis.  HG 
Properties A, L.P., B-277572, et al., Oct. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  123 at 
5.  We recommended that the Forest Service amend the SFO to state its 
actual requirements regarding the location of the computer room 
vis-ï¿½-vis the microwave equipment and radio transmitters, and reopen 
negotiations with the competitive range offerors to allow them an 
opportunity to respond to the amended solicitation.

On October 31, in response to our decision, the Forest Service amended 
the SFO to change the occupancy date from March 1 to July 1 and to 
delete references to microwave equipment.  The agency also reopened 
the competition, requesting BAFOs from HG, MSL, and another firm.

Prior to the closing date for receipt of BAFOs, HG protested the terms 
of the amended solicitation.  Specifically, HG complains that the 
Forest Service had no reasonable basis to change the required 
occupancy date and to delete references to microwave equipment; the 
protester asserts that these changes were made in bad faith to favor 
MSL in the competition.

The Forest Service responds that because of delays caused by HG's 
earlier protest a March 1 occupancy date was not realistic for firms, 
such as MSL, that would be required to do construction or remodeling.  
The agency estimated that award would not be made until mid-December 
and that this would not allow sufficient time for construction or 
remodeling to meet the original occupancy date, particularly 
considering the severe winter conditions usually experienced in Libby.  
The delayed occupancy date would, in the agency's view, be less 
restrictive of competition.  The agency also states that it deleted 
the reference to microwave equipment because the Forest Service 
supervisor's office does not have, and will not in the future use, 
microwave equipment.[1]

HG disagrees with the agency's statements, asserting that the Forest 
Service has not provided evidence to establish that the change in the 
occupancy date was necessary or that the agency does not have, and 
will not have, microwave equipment in the Forest Service supervisor's 
office.  Regarding the amended occupancy date, HG asserts that the 
agency's minimum requirements have not changed and that maintaining 
the original occupancy date would not be restrictive of competition 
because the competition was already limited to the original 
competitive range offerors.  In the alternative, HG argues that the 
change in the occupancy date is such a substantial and material change 
in the solicitation that the Forest Service was required to conduct a 
new, unrestricted competition.  

We find that the Forest Service had a reasonable basis to amend the 
SFO's occupancy date.  Because contracting agencies have broad 
discretion in determining their needs and the best method of 
accommodating those needs, we will not question an agency's 
determination of its needs unless that determination has no reasonable 
basis.  OPS, Inc., B-271835, July 31, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  50 at 4.  The 
delay in the procurement occasioned by HG's prior protest and the 
anticipated severe weather conditions to be expected in Libby during 
the winter provide the agency with a reasonable basis to delay the 
occupancy date, given that such a delay will meet the agency's needs.

We note that acceptance of HG's contention would apparently provide 
the firm a competitive advantage, given its offer of existing space, 
should the occupancy date not be delayed to reflect the delays in the 
procurement and the need for new construction to be performed during 
the winter; our Office will not consider this type of contention--that 
is, that a solicitation requirement that the agency believes meets its 
needs should be made more restrictive than the agency believes is 
required.  See Simplix, B-274388, Dec. 6, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  216 at 5-6.  

We also find no evidence that the Forest Service's amendment of the 
occupancy date was the result of bias or bad faith in favor of MSL or 
against HG.  Where a protester alleges bias on the part of government 
officials, the protester must provide credible evidence clearly 
demonstrating bias against the protester or for the awardee, and that 
the agency's bias translated into action that unfairly affected the 
protester's competitive position.  Advanced Sciences, Inc., 
B-259569.3, July 3, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  52 at 17.  HG's bald allegations 
do not satisfy this standard.

We also disagree with HG's arguments that the delay in the occupancy 
date is a cardinal change in the solicitation such that a new, 
unrestricted competition was required to be conducted.  In fact, the 
original SFO provided for the contracting officer's evaluation of 
whether a later proposed occupancy date would satisfy the agency's 
needs.  In any event, since HG was provided with an opportunity to 
submit a BAFO under the amended solicitation, it was not competitively 
disadvantaged by the agency's determination to continue with the 
competition under this SFO.

HG also protests the deletion of the SFO's references to microwave 
equipment, alleging, contrary to the agency's statements, that the 
Forest Service supervisor's office currently has microwave equipment.  
In response to this protest allegation, the agency has provided us 
with an inventory and specifications for all the communications 
equipment currently located in the Forest Service supervisor's office 
in Libby.  This evidence, which is unrebutted by the protester, 
establishes that the communications equipment used by the Forest 
Service at this location is radio, not microwave, equipment.  In 
addition, the agency reiterates that it will not install and use 
microwave equipment in this location in the future.  Accordingly, we 
find no basis to object to the agency's deletion of solicitation 
references to microwave equipment, given the absence of such equipment 
at this location, nor do we find any evidence of bias in the agency's 
actions.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The Forest Service states that the Forest Service supervisor at 
this location uses a VHF/UHF radio communication system rather than a 
microwave communication system.  HG suggests that placing radio 
transmitters within the computer room would also be a proposal 
deficiency.  We do not address this concern because HG's allegations 
prematurely presume that the agency will not appropriately account for 
offerors' proposed layouts, including the location of radio 
transmitters vis-ï¿½-vis the computer room, in their evaluation of 
proposals under the Potential for Efficient Layout factor.