BNUMBER:  B-280634             
DATE:  October 27, 1998
TITLE: Melvin Cohen & Associates, Inc., B-280634, October 27, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Melvin Cohen & Associates, Inc.

File:B-280634            
        
Date:October 27, 1998

Melvin Cohen for the protester. 
Paul G. McDonald for Entek, an intervenor.
Stacey North Willis, Esq., Charlma J. Quarles, Esq., and Phillipa L. 
Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. 
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that awardee is not located within 300 miles of the place of 
performance, as required by solicitation, is denied where record shows 
that awardee has a "strategic partnership" agreement with a concern 
within the designated area; agreement was adequate to satisfy the 
requirement, given that solicitation did not define the precise nature 
of the term "located." 

DECISION

Melvin Cohen and Associates, Inc. (MCA) protests the award of a 
contract to Entek Corporation under Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) solicitation No. 583-37-98, synopsized in the Commerce Business 
Daily (CBD) of February 5, 1998, for architect/engineer services to 
expand and retrofit the cooling tower at the VA Medical Center in 
Indianapolis, Indiana.  MCA contends that the awardee is not located 
within 300 miles of the place of performance, as required by the 
solicitation. 
We deny the protest.

The CBD notice provided:  "Area of consideration--firms located within 
a 300-mile radius of Indianapolis, IN."  The solicitation did not 
define what was meant by "located."  The awardee's principal place of 
business is California, but the firm maintains what it refers to as a 
branch office in Park Ridge, Illinois, which is within 300 miles of 
Indianapolis. 

MCA maintains that the awardee's branch office in fact is the office 
of an individual--Mr. Richard Bojanowski, a mechanical engineer--whose 
association with Entek is not sufficient to permit Entek to use his 
office to satisfy the location requirement.  MCA asserts that Entek is 
merely using Mr. Bojanowski's office as a "front" for its operation 
and that, as a California concern, Entek is not eligible to receive 
award.

The agency reasonably determined that Entek met the location 
requirement.  The record shows that Mr. Bojanowski was one of the 
personnel included in the Entek proposal for purposes of this project, 
and Entek has submitted a letter agreement between it and Mr. 
Bojanowski, executed in 1994, which references a "strategic 
partnership" between the two, stating:

     For future considerations, you [Mr. Bojanowski] will allow us to 
     use your facilities as an Entek Branch Office to receive our mail 
     and occupy office space as needed for engineering purposes.  We 
     will negotiate your compensation, overhead, profit and expenses 
     for each project and scope of work.  You will represent Entek as 
     our employee in the capacity of Project Engineer.

Letter from Entek to Richard Bojanowski (Feb. 1, 1994).  

MCA argues at length about the precise nature of the relationship 
between Entek and Mr. Bojanowski.  It asserts, for example, that 
because Entek has not produced documentation such as payroll records, 
the agency unreasonably accepted Entek's representation that Mr. 
Bojanowski was an employee of the firm and, therefore, that his office 
was an Entek branch office.  MCA Comments, Sept. 16, 1998, at 1-3.   
These arguments all are premised on an interpretation that simply is 
not warranted by the solicitation.  Specifically, while MCA would 
require a certain type of relationship between Entek and Mr. 
Bojanowski before finding compliance with the location requirement, 
the solicitation did not set forth criteria to be applied in 
determining whether a firm met the requirement.  It is our view that, 
in these circumstances, the contracting agency has reasonable 
discretion in determining compliance.  See DOT Sys., Inc., B-193153, 
Mar. 7, 1979, 79-1 CPD  para.  160 at 2.  While the protester would apply a 
stricter standard, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's 
accepting the "strategic partnership" relationship established in the 
1994 agreement as satisfactory for purposes of meeting the 
requirement.     

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States.