TITLE:  Ronald W. Brown, B-292646, September 30, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292646
DATE:  September 30, 2003
**********************************************************************
Ronald W. Brown, B-292646, September 30, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Ronald W. Brown
    
File:            B-292646
    
Date:              September 30, 2003
    
Ronald W. Brown for the protester.
Ronald W. Messerly, Snell & Wilmer, for RNPP, LLP, an intervenor.
Allan Aasmaa, Esq., GSA-Public Buildings Service, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Where solicitation for lease of property specified western boundary
for area under consideration as a street name, and nothing in the
solicitation indicated that agency would consider only properties on the
east side of the center of the street, agency reasonably determined that
awardee*s property on west side of the street was acceptable.
    
2.  Solicitation provision stating that agency would not lease property
within a 100‑year flood plain did not bar agency from awarding lease
for space within a building that itself was not located in the flood
plain, even though the periphery of the property on which the building was
located was within the flood plain.
DECISION
    
Ronald W. Brown (RWB) protests the award of a contract to RNPP, LLP under
solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 1AZ0062, issued by the General Services
Administration (GSA) to lease space for the Bureau of the Census and The
Fish and Wildlife Service in a designated area of Tucson, Arizona.RWB
asserts that the property offered by RNPP is not within the designated
area, and that it is located in a flood plain in violation of the
solicitation.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The solicitation delineated the western boundary for the lease site as
Bonita Avenue. SFO, amend. No. 1, S: 1.2.  RWB argues that the property
offered by RNPP, at 201 N. Bonita Avenue, does not fall within this
specified area because it is located on the west side of the street.  In
the protester*s view, the property must be located no further than the
centerline of Bonita Avenue in order to be considered within the western
boundary.  This argument is without merit.  The agency explains that it
did not intend to limit acceptable properties to the east side of Bonita
Avenue, and since the solicitation did not specify this limitation, it was
reasonable for the agency to consider the awardee*s property on the west
side of Bonita Avenue.  
    
RWB also complains that the property offered by RNPP is located within a
100-year flood plain, in violation of the solicitation, which stated that
GSA would not award a contract for a property located within a 100-year
flood plain unless there was no practicable alternative; RWB concludes
that RNPP*s property was not eligible for award. 
    
RWB*s argument is without merit.  The solicitation did not call for a
parcel of land; rather, it called for approximately 14,400 rentable square
feet of space and 23 on-site parking spaces.  SFO, amend. No. 1, S: 1.1A. 
RNPP offered 13,574 square feet of space and 23 on-site parking
spaces.[1]  While a peripheral part of the land on which the offered space
is located apparently sits within a 100-year flood plain, neither the
building nor the parking spaces that GSA is leasing are located in the
flood plain.  Since the contract is for the lease of building and parking
space, which are not in the flood plain, and there is no argument or
evidence that the flood plain will interfere with the agency*s use of the
leased space, we think GSA reasonably determined that the awardee*s offer
was acceptable.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] Part of the space is in a building already in existence, and part is
in a building to be constructed.