TITLE:  Simborg Development, Inc., B-283538, December 7, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283538
DATE:  December 7, 1999
**********************************************************************
Simborg Development, Inc., B-283538, December 7, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Simborg Development, Inc.

File: B-283538

Date: December 7, 1999

Michael H. Payne, Esq., and Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Starfield & Payne,
for the protester.

Gary F. Davis, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that source selection decision was unreasonable on the basis that
there was inadequate information in the record to support the agency's
rationale for the decision is denied where, notwithstanding the lack of
contemporaneous documentation supporting the source selection itself,
contracting officer furnished a post-protest narrative explanation of the
rationale for her decision, which was consistent with contemporaneous
evaluation documentation and otherwise credible.

DECISION

Simborg Development, Inc. protests the award of a lease to Highwoods
Properties, Inc. under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 8FL0209, issued by
the General Services Administration (GSA) for office and related space in
Jacksonville, Florida. Simborg principally argues that there is inadequate
documentation in the record to support the reasonableness of the source
selection.

We deny the protest.

As amended, the SFO sought offers to enter into an initial lease term of 10
years, with two renewal options of 5 years each, for 76,000 to 78,280 net
usable square feet (nusf) of space to be used by the Internal Revenue
Services (IRS) Customer Service Centers. SFO at 4-5; Contracting Officer's
Statement (COS) at 1. Award was to be made on a best value basis, with price
significantly less important than the technical factors. SFO at 48.

The evaluation was to be conducted in two phases. Five proposals were
received and were evaluated initially by the three-member source selection
evaluation board (SSEB) to determine whether they met various SFO minimum
requirements. COS
at 3; Agency Report, Tab 23, Letter from Contracting Officer to Awardee 1
(Aug. 20, 1999). Following written discussions and oral presentations, the
proposals were evaluated under the following phase I factors (weighted on a
100-point scale):
(1) quality of the site (35 percent); (2) security (35 percent); and (3)
building amenities (30 percent). SFO at 48; COS at 2; Agency Report, Tab 6,
Discussions with Highwoods, at 1-2, and Tab 14, Discussions with Simborg, at
1-16. Highwoods's proposal received 97.06 points, while Simborg's received
89.42 points. [1] Agency Report, Tab 21, Evaluations of Phase I Proposals,
at 1, 17; GAO Telephone Conference, Nov. 12, 1999. Three of the proposals
were included in the competitive range, including those of Simborg and
Highwoods. Agency Report, Tab 23, Letter from Contracting Officer to Awardee
1 (Aug. 20, 1999). These proposals then were evaluated under the following
phase II factors (weighted on a 100-point scale):
(1) building configuration and efficiency of space layout (50 percent); and
(2) past performance (50 percent). SFO at 50; COS at 2. Highwoods's proposal
received 92.15 points and Simborg's 83.15 points. Agency Report, Tab 22,
Evaluations of Phase II Proposals, at 1, 20. The phase I and II points were
combined and divided by two to arrive at an overall technical ranking. SFO
at 48; GAO Telephone Conference with Parties, Nov. 12, 1999. These rankings
were as follows:

 Offeror            Technical Score    Price (net         Price per year
                                       present value      for 10-year lease
                                       per nusf)          term

 Highwoods          94.61 points       $11.05             $1,400,871.90

 Simborg            86.29              [deleted]          1,709,635.20

COS at 3; Declaration of Contracting Officer (DCO), Nov. 17, 1999, at 1; GAO
Telephone Conference, Nov. 12, 1999; Agency Report, Tab 20, Abstract of
Revised Offers, at 3.

Highwoods and Simborg then submitted revised proposals. The SSEB evaluated
these, but did not change the scores. COS at 2. The SSEB concluded that
Highwoods's proposal was technically superior to Simborg's under the quality
of site, security, building amenities, and building configuration and
efficiency of space layout factors, while Simborg's was superior to
Highwoods's under only the past performance factor. COS at 4-5; Agency
Report, Tab 21, Evaluation of Phase I Proposals, at 1, 17. Based on
Highwoods's technically superior proposal and lower price, the SSEB
recommended to the contracting officer, who also served as an evaluator and
as the source selection authority (SSA), that award be made to that firm.
COS at 4, 8. Based on this recommendation and her own evaluation
conclusions, the SSA selected Highwoods for award. Id. at 4-8. This award
decision was not contemporaneously documented by the SSA. Rather, the SSA
has explained her rationale in a post-protest statement prepared in
connection with this protest. Id.; Agency Report at 2-3.

EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION

Simborg argues that there is no basis to conclude that the source selection
was reasonable, since there is no contemporaneous documentation showing the
SSA considered the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals in making the
decision. Simborg claims the SSA's post-protest explanation "is the same, if
not worse, than not documenting the evaluation at all." [2] Protester's
Comments at 2; Protester's Supplemental Comments at 2.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection
decision, we examine the record to determine whether the agency acted
reasonably and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. PRC, Inc.,
B-274698.2, B-274698.3,
Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD para.115 at 4. Implicit in the foregoing is that the
evaluation must be documented in sufficient detail to show that it was not
arbitrary. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.sect. 15.305(a), 15.308; ACS
Government Solutions Group, Inc., B-282098 et al., June 2, 1999, 99-1 CPD
para. 106 at 13.

The protester's position is based on the incorrect view that post-protest
documentation can never constitute adequate support for an award decision.
While we generally accord greater weight to contemporaneous evidence, we
will consider post-protest explanations that provide a rationale for
contemporaneous conclusions,

so long as those explanations are credible and consistent with
contemporaneous record. Jason Assocs. Corp., B-278689 et al., Mar. 2, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 67 at 6-7; PRC, Inc., supra, at 4-5.

Here, the SSA's post-protest statement provides adequate support for the
award decision. This statement shows that she considered the scores and the
SSEB findings, and is consistent with the narrative summaries documenting
her own evaluation (as one of the evaluators) of the strengths and
weaknesses in the offerors' proposals under each technical factor. COS at
3-8.

For example, under the security factor, a proposal was to be rated as
excellent for proposing a building with (1) a 24-hour-a-day guard service
and surveillance systems; or (2) a 24-hour-a-day electronic key card
perimeter security system; (3) secured parking; and (4) two sources of power
and few power outages. SFO at 49. The SSA states that she rated Highwoods's
proposal excellent, since it offered these and additional features,
including a central station command center and experienced security staff.
In contrast, Simborg's proposal was rated lower as it did not offer all the
features required for an excellent rating. COS at 6. These same strengths
and weaknesses were noted in the SSA's own evaluation summaries. Agency
Report,
Tab 21, Evaluation of Phase I Proposals, at 11, 26. As another example,
under the building amenities factor, a proposal was to be rated excellent
for offering (1) on-site full service cafeterias; (2) food service
amenities; and (3) banks or ATMs. SFO at 49. The SSA rated Highwoods's
proposal excellent, since it again proposed many amenities in addition to
those listed above, including more than 25 retail stores; a special events
meeting place; photography, copy, and mail centers; a 350-seat auditorium; a
smoker's room; a shoe repair; a florist; a hair and nail salon; and a health
food restaurant. In contrast, Simborg's proposal was rated lower because it
did not offer all the features required for an excellent rating. COS at 6-7.
These differences were also noted in the SSA's own narrative summaries.
Agency Report, Tab 21, Evaluation of Phase I Proposals, at 12, 27. Since
nothing in the record casts doubt on the credibility of the SSA's statement,
and the statement is consistent with the contemporaneous evaluation record,
the record is sufficient to establish the reasonableness of her decision;
the absence of contemporaneous documentation of the award decision is not a
basis for questioning the award. [3]

SECURITY FACTOR

Simborg argues that Highwoods's proposal should not have been included in
the competitive range and selected for award, since it did not meet a
setback requirement and prohibition against underground parking under the
security factor; Simborg claims it was told by the agency that these were
security requirements. Protest at 4; Protester's Comments at 4. Simborg
further asserts that the agency encouraged Simborg during its oral
presentation to include even more stringent security measures in its
proposal than those mentioned above, Protester's Comments, Affidavit of
Protester, Oct. 7, 1999, at 1-2, such that the firm offered concrete
planters, an additional security measure, in its revised proposal.
Protester's Comments at 6.

The agency responds that, although it initially considered including these
security requirements in the SFO, it decided prior to issuance of the
solicitation not to include them. Agency Report at 2; Supplemental Agency
Report at 2. Further, the agency denies informing Simborg that the stringent
security measures were SFO requirements, stating that it in fact reminded
Simborg at its oral presentation that they were not part of the SFO.
Supplemental Agency Report at 2-3.

Simborg's argument is without merit. In this regard, the agency is correct
that the SFO contained no requirement for a setback or a prohibition against
underground parking, SFO at 22-23, 49; the agency thus could not reject
Highwoods's proposal on this basis. To the extent Simborg believed these
requirements were included in the SFO on the basis of alleged agency
representations, since this information was inconsistent with the written
solicitation, it did not serve to amend the SFO absent a written amendment
or confirmation. See Materials Management Group, Inc.,
B-261523, Sept. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 140 at 3-4. Further, even assuming that
the agency advised Simborg to include more stringent security measures in
its proposal (in fact, there is no support for this conclusion beyond the
protester's own uncorroborated statements), Simborg has not shown, and it is
not apparent, how the addition of planters, or any other changes it made to
its proposal in response to the advice, negatively affected its competitive
position. As indicated, Simborg's price was about $308,763 higher than
Highwoods's, and its technical rating was lower than Highwoods's, an
evaluation result Simborg has not challenged. Agency Report,
Tab 20, Abstract of Final Offers, at 3. We conclude that Simborg was not
prejudiced by the agency's alleged actions. See Sytel, Inc., B-277849.2,
B-277849.3, Jan. 8, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 21 at 11; see Statistica, Inc. v .
Christopher, 102 F. 3d 1577, 1581
(Fed. Cir. 1996).

The protest is denied.

The Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. During the course of this protest, the agency discovered minor scoring
errors, the correction of which resulted in slightly decreased scores for
both offerors. Simborg does not dispute the corrected scores or the agency's
conclusion that the correction did not affect the award decision.
Declaration of Contracting Officer (DCO),
Nov. 17, 1999, at 1; GAO Telephone Conference, Nov. 12, 1999.

2. Simborg also asserts that the SSEB failed to adequately document its
phase I and II evaluations. Comments at 2. The protester argues, for
example, that there is no evaluation documentation from one of the
evaluators. These allegations are incorrect. In fact, the record contains
extensive evaluation documentation of the proposals under phases I and II,
including the three SSEB members' narrative summary statements explaining
the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal under each evaluation factor;
scores for each proposal under each factor; and consensus score sheets for
each offeror, in which the individual scores were averaged and the average
scores for each evaluation factor totaled to determine a final overall
consensus score. Agency Report, Tab 21, Evaluations of Phase I Proposals, at
1-27, and Tab 22, Evaluations of Phase II Proposals, at 1-54. While only two
of the three evaluators' narrative summaries are signed, the third evaluator
has submitted a declaration and statement that the unsigned narrative
summaries were completed by him. Declaration of Evaluator, Nov. 16, 1999, at
1.

3. We note that, while Simborg complains about the adequacy of documentation
supporting the source selection, it nowhere asserts that its proposal should
have been rated superior to Highwoods's under any evaluation factor.