BNUMBER:  B-280518        
DATE:  October 13, 1998
TITLE: Acquest Uniland LLC, B-280518, October 13, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Matter of:    Acquest Uniland LLC

File:      B-280518           

Date:      October 13, 1998

Derek J. Mohr, Esq., and Victor C. Silverstein, Esq., Lippes, 
Silverstein, Mathias & Wexler, for the protester.
Michael L. Martinez, Esq., and Paul G. Lane, Esq., Thompson, Hine & 
Flory, an intervenor.
Jerry Ann Foster, Esq., and Lee Crook, Esq., General Services 
Administration, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where protester disagrees with the agency's evaluation of 
proposals, but the record does not show that the agency's 
determinations lack a reasonable basis or are otherwise improper, 
protest allegations that the procuring agency improperly evaluated 
proposals are denied.

2.  In a negotiated, best value procurement for office and related 
space, an agency may select a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for 
award, where the agency reasonably determines in accordance with the 
stated evaluation factors that the technical merit of the higher-rated 
proposal outweighs the price advantage of the lower-rated proposal.

DECISION

Acquest Uniland LLC protests the award of a lease to The Penrose 
Corporation under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. SLA 97005, issued 
by the General Services Administration for office and related space to 
house the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) offices in New 
Orleans, Louisiana.  Acquest alleges various improprieties regarding 
the evaluation of proposals, and challenges the selection of Penrose's 
higher technically rated, higher evaluated price offer for award.

We deny the protest.

The SFO, issued on October 1, 1997 and as amended, contemplated the 
award of a design-build-lease for an initial term of 20 years, with 
two 10-year options.  The solicitation sought offers for the design 
and construction of a new building and parking facilities and provided 
detailed specifications for architectural, mechanical, electrical, 
plumbing, utilities and maintenance requirements.  SFO  sec.  4-7 at 
24-42.  In addition, the SFO listed several minimum and unique 
requirements including, a 100-foot setback of the building from a 
vehicle resistant barrier, and a total of
165 secured, inside parking spaces.  SFO Amend. No. 3,  sec.  1.3(a), (b) 
at 1.  The solicitation specified an occupancy date of June 1, 
1999.[1]  SFO  sec.  1.1, 1.5, 1.6 at 5. 

Initial project team information would be reviewed by the agency on a 
"go/no go" basis to determine if the firms' submittals meet the stated 
minimum requirements of the SFO.  Only those firms whose submittal was 
given a "go" would be invited to submit offers.  SFO  sec.  1.5 at 5,  sec.  
2.2.1 at 9.  Award would be made to the responsible offeror whose 
proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was judged most advantageous 
to the government, price and other award factors considered.  SFO Form 
3516  sec.  10 at 5.   The prospectus funding for this project was listed 
in the solicitation as $1,890,000.[2]  SFO Amend. No. 3,  sec.  1.3(f) at 
2.  

Proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three weighted technical 
factors:    (1) schematic design/quality of building [DELETED]; (2)  
project team experience and qualifications [DELETED]; and (3) 
management plan [DELETED].  The first factor consisted of the 
following five equally weighted subfactors:  (a) architecture;  (b) 
structural systems; (c) mechanical; (d) electrical systems; and (e) 
quality of construction.  The second factor consisted of three equally 
weighted subfactors:      (a) key personnel qualifications; (b) past 
performance; and (c) design excellence.  SFO  sec.   2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 
at 10-12.  The combined weight of the technical factors was more 
important than evaluated prices, but evaluated prices would become 
more important as proposals became more equal in technical merit.  SFO  sec.  
2.2
at 9.  Price was to be evaluated on the basis of the total annual rent 
per square foot (SF) over the life of the anticipated lease expressed 
as a net present value.  SFO
 sec.  1.11 at 6-7.  

GSA received initial project team submittals from 13 firms; of these, 
offers were requested from seven firms, including Acquest and Penrose.  
The contracting officer, who served as the source selection official, 
forwarded the offers received to the agency's source selection 
evaluation board for evaluation.  Oral presentations and written 
discussions were held with each offeror during the week of April 20. 
[3]  During discussions, Acquest was informed of numerous deficiencies 
in its proposal and the protester was asked, for example, the 
following:

     Please address/clarify the following in your revised offer:  
     proposed rendering of your submittal building does not match your 
     proposed site plan/building outline; visitor parking could be 
     reduced to approximately 20 to 30 spaces; concerns over 
     pedestrian traffic into main entrance with vehicles, possible 
     congestion; and separation not necessary for Automotive/Radio 
     Maintenance Facility and garage.

     Please read and submit all that is required by paragraph 2.2.4, 
     Management Plan, of referenced SFO with your revised offer.  
     Paragraph 2.2.4, Management Plan, is a weighted factor (DELETED) 
     and will be used in evaluating offers.

Letter from GSA to Acquest (Apr. 30, 1998).

Revised proposals were received by May 13 and oral presentations were 
held the week of May 18.  In requesting best and final offers (BAFO), 
GSA advised Acquest that:

     Due to the multiple changes in your offer over the discussion 
     period, the Government requests three copies of your complete, 
     best and final offer to include all necessary information from 
     section 2 of the SFO.  This will clarify all changes to your 
     proposal for rating purposes.  No previous documentation shall be 
     considered for award.  

Letter from GSA to Acquest (May 29, 1998) (emphasis added).

BAFOs were received by June 5.  Acquest's proposed annual rental for 
the initial lease term was $2,198,376, and $816,020 for the option 
term, while Penrose's offer was $2,408,339 and $1,855,714.75, 
respectively.  The individual evaluators completed their scoring of 
BAFOs and prepared a consensus technical evaluation report.  With 
respect to price, the agency performed a net present value analysis of 
the offers received.[4]  The consensus evaluation results for the 
protester's and awardee's BAFOs were as follows: 

        Factors                   Acquest    Penrose

        1.  Schematic Design
        
             a.  Architecture     
                                  [DELETED]  
                                             [DELETED]   

             b.  Structural Systems[DELETED] [DELETED]   

             c.  Mechanical Systems[DELETED] [DELETED]   

             d.  Electrical Systems[DELETED] [DELETED]   

             e.  Quality of Constr.[DELETED] [DELETED]   

        2.  Project Team             Experience & Qual.
        
             a.  Key Personnel Qual.
                                  
                                  [DELETED]  
                                             
                                             [DELETED]   

             b.  Past Performance [DELETED]  [DELETED]   

             c.  Design Excellence[DELETED]  [DELETED]   

        3.  Management Plan       [DELETED]  [DELETED]   

        TOTAL WEIGHTED  TECH. SCORE (max. 10 points)
                                  [DELETED]  
                                             [DELETED]   

        PRICE                     $8.80      $9.85[5]  
Acquest's consensus evaluation scores reflected the evaluators' 
judgment that the firm's BAFO contained weaknesses under the most 
important evaluation factor, schematic design/quality of building.  
For example, Acquest's BAFO did not include any information under the 
quality of construction subfactor (with a weighted value of [DELETED]) 
and was therefore assigned a score of [DELETED].  In contrast, the 
evaluators assigned Penrose's BAFO a consensus score of [DELETED] 
under this subfactor.  After reviewing the evaluation results, the 
contracting officer, who served as the source selection officer, 
determined that Penrose's higher evaluated price proposal was 
technically superior to the proposal submitted by the protester based 
on the firm's higher technical scores under all the technical factors, 
whose combined weight was more important than evaluated prices.  
Accordingly, the contracting officer determined that Penrose's 
technically superior proposal was most advantageous to the government 
and that this technical superiority justified the payment of an 
evaluated price premium to Penrose.  Award was made to that firm on 
June 26.  Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact and Position, Aug. 
4, 1998 at 6.  Subsequent to a debriefing by the agency, Acquest filed 
this protest.

Acquest protests the evaluation of proposals and the decision to 
select Penrose's higher-priced proposal for award on numerous bases.  
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is 
not our role to reevaluate proposals.  Rather, our Office will examine 
the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable 
and in accord with the stated evaluation factors.  Peterson Constr. 
Co., B-256841, Aug. 3, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  55 at 3.  A protester's mere 
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the 
evaluation unreasonable.  Id.  From our review of the written record, 
including the proposal submissions and the parties' protest arguments, 
we conclude that the agency's evaluation of proposals and the 
selection decision were reasonable.  We discuss some of Acquest's 
principal arguments below.   

Acquest challenges the accuracy and materiality of virtually all the 
weaknesses identified in its proposal.  Specifically, the protester 
alleges that in downgrading its proposal in at least 13 areas the 
evaluators either did not read its proposal submission or simply 
overlooked the salient areas in its proposal as evidenced by  the 
evaluators' "patently incorrect statements" in the evaluation 
worksheets.  We disagree, since the protester's allegations are not 
supported by the record.  

The SFO provided that proposals should include information which 
addresses each of the technical factors identified in the solicitation 
with sufficient detail.  SFO  sec.  2.2.2 at 10.  More specifically, the 
solicitation, at  sec.  2.2.2(b) at 10, required that an offeror's 
narrative submission describe, for example, its proposed structural 
systems in the following manner:
     
     (1)  Loadings - Discuss the live floor loads for each programmed 
     space type. A schedule may be provided if considered appropriate.

     (2)  Foundations - Define the proposed foundation systems 
     supporting preliminary soils data.  Define the below grade 
     framing systems.  Discuss provisions for handling groundwater.

     (3)  Gravity Load Framing System - Discuss the framing systems 
     proposed for the facility.  Address type of construction 
     materials, typical system depth, typical bay dimensions, floor 
     deflections, periods of vibration, and fire resistance.

The evaluation record shows that the evaluators downgraded the 
protester's proposal under the structural systems subfactor, because 
Acquest's proposal contained no "mention [of] specific load 
capacities, beam or girder sizes, lateral loads, deflections, 
vibrations, foundations."  Consensus Evaluation Statement (Acquest) at 
4.  Although Acquest's proposal contains information regarding, for 
example, the typical live and dead loads for this building, the 
proposed foundation design system, its proposed normal weight slab and 
typical bay dimensions, it does not indicate the type of structural 
system being proposed.  Acquest BAFO, June 4, 1998,  sec.  2.2.2.B.1, 
2.2.2.B.2, 2.2.2.B.3.  In this regard, Acquest's proposal simply 
indicates that "[w]hile both structural steel and cast-in-place 
concrete will be investigated before a final decision on a structural 
system is made, [Acquest] expect[s] a cast-in-place, post-tensioned 
framing system to be the likely choice."  Acquest BAFO, June 4, 1998,  sec.  
2.2.2.B.3, entitled, "Gravity Load Framing System."  Since the 
protester failed to specifically identify whether a cast-in-place 
system or a structural steel system would be used for this building, 
there was nothing unreasonable in the evaluators' conclusion that this 
failure to identify a structural system was a weakness in Acquest's 
proposal and justified the downgrading of the protester's proposal 
under this subfactor.   

Similarly, Acquest's allegation that its proposal was impermissibly 
downgraded under the management plan factor ignores the fact that its 
proposal omitted information required under this evaluation factor.  
Under the management plan factor, offerors were required to address 
areas such as cost control, schedule control, coordination of team 
members, communication with the owner, project scheduling, 
organizational structure, and the manner in which the offeror would 
facilitate the accomplishment of project requirements.  SFO  sec.  2.2.4 at 
12.  Acquest provided an organizational chart and construction 
schedule in its BAFO but its management plan narrative did not address 
areas such as how it would manage the construction, how it would 
manage costs and quality control issues, and failed to identify the 
individual who would handle communications with GSA.  Thus, the 
evaluators determined that Acquest had not provided an adequate 
management plan for this project beyond the organizational chart and 
construction schedule.  While Acquest challenges these evaluation 
conclusions, the evaluation documentation shows that the evaluators 
reviewed Acquest's BAFO and concluded that its proposal either lacked 
specificity or omitted information required by the solicitation.  
Since under the terms of the SFO the protester was responsible for 
providing a detailed proposal which addressed all of the evaluation 
factors, the protester must bear the consequence for its failure to 
submit an adequately written proposal and proposal revisions.  
Caldwell Consulting Assocs., B-242767, B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  530 at 6.  We think the evaluators reasonably could view 
Acquest's proposal as weak and, consistent with the terms of the SFO, 
downgrade Acquest's BAFO where the protester failed to include all 
required information in its proposal.   

Next, although Acquest asserts that GSA failed to conduct meaningful 
discussions, agencies are not obligated to afford all-encompassing 
discussions or discuss every element of a competitive range proposal; 
agencies are only required to lead offerors into the areas of their 
proposals considered deficient.  Docusort, Inc.,
B-254852, Jan. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  38 at 4-5.  According to the 
protester, GSA should have informed the firm that its "submission was 
being severely downgraded for non-technical reasons such as a lack of 
spit and polish in certain written descriptions."  Protester's 
Comments, Aug. 19, 1998,  para.  4 at 8-9. 

Based on our review of the record, we find that GSA conducted 
appropriate and meaningful discussions with Acquest during successive 
rounds of oral and written discussions.  For instance, in its April 30 
discussion letter to Acquest, GSA advised the protester that its 
revised offer should include a management plan which addressed "all 
that is required by paragraph 2.2.4, Management Plan, of the 
referenced SFO."  In addition, the protester was reminded that the 
management plan evaluation factor was valued at [DELETED] of the 
available technical points.  Letter from GSA to Acquest (Apr. 30, 
1998).  The record shows that even though Acquest was specifically 
asked to provide a full discussion of its management plan, once in 
writing and twice during oral negotiations, it failed to do so.  
Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact and Position, Aug. 14, 1998 at 
13.  The record further shows that in preparing its BAFO, Acquest 
sought further clarifications regarding the contracting officer's 
"request that we resubmit Section 2 requirements, does that include 
Sub-section 2.2.1 Minimum Requirements."  Letter from Acquest to GSA 
(June 1, 1998).  The contracting officer responded to this and other 
specific questions by telephone; nonetheless, as discussed previously, 
the protester's BAFO lacked the technical details or omitted 
information required by the SFO.  Contracting Officer's Statement of 
Fact and Position, Aug. 4, 1998 at 10.  Given the factual record 
before us, we find it unreasonable for the protester to assert that 
GSA was required to seek further clarifications when Acquest furnished 
less than the specific information required by the SFO.  Rather than 
being downgraded for a lack of "spit and polish," the protester's 
proposal was downgraded for failing to meet SFO requirements, 
notwithstanding the agency's questions and comments during 
discussions.  We find that the discussions were adequate; the agency 
is not required to "spoonfeed" an offeror as to each and every area in 
its proposal that must be revised or otherwise addressed.  ITT Fed. 
Servs. Corp., B-250096, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  6 at 6. 
 
Finally, Acquest argues that the award decision was flawed because 
price was not given sufficient weight.  Where, as here, the SFO does 
not provide for award on the basis of the lowest-priced, technically 
acceptable offer, an agency has the discretion to make award to an 
offeror with a higher technical score and a higher price where it 
reasonably determines that the price premium is justified considering 
the technical superiority of the awardee's offer and the result is 
consistent with the evaluation factors.  LSS Leasing Corp., B-259551, 
Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  179 at 4-5.  

The record here supports the agency's price/technical tradeoff.  
First, Acquest's proposal received a consensus score of [DELETED] 
technical points and offered a price of $8.80 per SF;[6] Penrose's 
technical score was [DELETED] points, and its price was $9.85.  As 
discussed above, we have no basis to question Penrose's technical 
superiority as reflected in the scoring.  Moreover, beyond the scores 
assigned to the proposals and the prices offered, the record shows 
that the contracting officer, based on the evaluation record, 
reasonably concluded that the Penrose developer/team was more 
qualified and technically proficient, and the quality of the building 
proposed exceeded the quality of the building proposed by Acquest.  
Contracting Officer's Supplemental Statement of Fact and Position,
Aug. 27, 1998 at 8.  Having considered the technical scores assigned 
to the two proposals and the advantages and disadvantages of the 
proposed building offered by the two firms, the contracting officer 
considered the superiority of Penrose's proposal to be worth the 
additional cost of awarding to that firm.  Contracting Officer's 
Statement of Fact and Position, Aug. 4, 1998 at 6, 14; Contracting 
Officer's Supplemental Statement of Fact and Position, Aug. 27, 1998 
at 8.  Moreover, the contracting officer states that contrary to the 
protester's claim, the evaluators did consider the proposed upgrades 
and amenities offered by Acquest and Penrose.  Although these 
enhancements were not scored, the evaluators concluded that the 
upgrades and amenities offered by Penrose were significantly superior 
to those offered by the protester.  Contracting Officer's Supplemental 
Statement of Fact and Position, Aug. 27, 1998 at 8.  Under these 
circumstances, we have no basis to question that determination.

The protest is denied.[7]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The lease on the space currently occupied by the FBI expires on 
July 31, 1999.  

2. The prospectus funding level is the annual rental offered less 
operating expenses  and estimated real estate property taxes.    

3. During oral presentations each offeror was given the opportunity to 
present its written technical proposal to the agency officials and 
each offeror received feedback on those areas in its proposals that 
needed to be clarified.  Oral presentations were not a scored 
evaluation factor.

4. Acquest alleges that the procurement process was fundamentally 
flawed because four of the seven evaluated prices exceeded the $1.89 
million prospectus level which GSA had authority to accept.  We do not 
understand how this shows any flaw in the procurement.  In any event, 
we fail to see how this circumstance prejudiced the protester since 
the awardee submitted an offer below the prospectus level.  

5. In a supplemental agency report, GSA states that it had incorrectly 
                                             calculated Penrose's 
                                             price per SF as $9.29; 
                                             the correct price is 
                                             $9.85.

6. Acquest maintains that the agency's present value calculations was 
based on an incorrect methodology, resulting in an upward adjustment 
of its price per SF from $8.30 to $8.80.  However, our review of 
section 1.11 of the SFO, which sets forth the methodology for 
performing the present value analysis, indicates that under that 
stated methodology, GSA's calculation of Acquest's price as $8.80 per 
SF was correct.    

7. In its initial protest, Acquest argued that the agency erroneously 
concluded that Penrose's proposed contractor had the requisite 
experience called for in the SFO.  The agency report responded to 
these allegations, and the protester's comments failed to address the 
agency's response.  As a result, we consider this issue abandoned and 
will not address it.  LSS Leasing Corp., supra, at 4 n.6.