TITLE: B-298110, Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture, June 2, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298110
DATE: June 2, 2006
******************************************************************
B-298110, Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture, June 2, 2006

   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.

   Decision

   Matter of: Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture

   File: B-298110

   Date: June 2, 2006

   Robert C. MacKichan, Jr., Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Stuart W.
   Turner, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester.

   Sharon Roach, Esq., Edith L. Toms, Esq., and Elizabeth A. Hall, Esq.,
   General Services Administration, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   In solicitation for leased space, requirement that offered building be
   located within 2,500 walkable linear feet of various amenities is not
   unduly restrictive; requirement is reasonably aimed at ensuring that
   tenant federal employees will be able to walk to and from eating
   establishments and conduct other errands within the time allotted for
   lunch.

   DECISION

   Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture protests the location amenities
   requirement in solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 4DC0275, issued by the
   General Services Administration (GSA) for office space for the Department
   of Veterans Affairs (VA). Bristol asserts that the requirement is unduly
   restrictive and that the agency intends to apply undisclosed evaluation
   criteria that could preclude Bristol from receiving award.

   We deny the protest.

   The SFO sought 88,000 rentable square feet for VA, to be located in the
   Central Employment Area of Washington, D.C. The SFO, as amended, provided
   as follows regarding the location amenities:

     A variety of inexpensive fast food and moderately priced sit-down
     cafeteria or table service restaurants must be located within 2,500
     walkable linear feet [WLF]; and a variety of other employee services
     such as retail shops, cleaners, banks, etc., must be located within
     2,500 [WLF]. To meet this requirement, amenities must be existing or the
     offeror must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the
     Government (i.e. through evidence of signed leases, construction
     contracts, etc.) that such amenities will exist by the Government's
     required occupancy date.

   SFO, para. 1.3(A)(3). [1]

   Bristol submitted an offer for its building at One NoMa Station (NMS) on M
   Street, N.E., in Washington, D.C. However, Bristol also filed this
   protest, asserting that the proximity requirements in the location
   amenities clause are unduly restrictive of competition.

   A contracting agency has the discretion to determine its needs and the
   best method of accommodating them; we will review the agency's judgment
   for reasonableness. Parcel 47C LLC, B-286324, B-286324.2, Dec. 26, 2000,
   2001 CPD para. 44 at 7. An agency may include geographic restrictions if
   they are reasonably necessary for the agency to meet its minimum needs.
   NFI Mgmt. Co., B-240788, Dec. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 484 at 2. The fact
   that a requirement may be burdensome or even impossible for a particular
   firm to meet does not make it objectionable if the requirement properly
   reflects the agency's needs. Computer Maint. Operations Servs., B-255530,
   Feb. 23, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 170 at 2.

   GSA has established that the location amenities requirement reasonably
   reflects its actual needs. GSA explains that the types of amenities
   specified in the SFO are common in city locations, and that developers
   commonly include retail space inside buildings in central employment areas
   to accommodate the ordinary and reasonable needs of their tenants.
   Contracting Officer's Statement para. 8; Agency Report (AR) at 6. VA
   employees are allowed 30 minutes for lunch and need to be able to walk to
   the amenity and back, wait in line, order, and eat their lunch within that
   break time. Contracting Officer's Statement paras. 7, 9; AR at 6. GSA also
   notes that one of the VA offices to be located in the solicited space
   provides training, outreach, and assistance to veterans, including
   disabled veterans, and thus will likely have disabled veteran visitors.
   Contracting Officer's Statement paras. 5, 7. Because of the length of time
   it takes to walk 2,500 feet and back, GSA concluded that eliminating the
   maximum distance or allowing some greater distance would leave employees
   with insufficient time to eat or accomplish errands during their lunch
   break.[2] AR at 6. Despite the 2,500 WLF restriction, [deleted] offerors,
   including Bristol, submitted proposals by the closing time. Moreover,
   Bristol's own proposal asserts that it meets the agency's requirements. In
   this regard, its proposal refers to the [deleted]. Bristol Proposal at 1.
   We find that the agency reasonably determined that some proximity
   restriction is required to assure that VA employees and visitors will have
   adequate time for eating and errands during lunch. An approximately 1-mile
   round-trip restriction seems reasonable given the 30 minutes allowed for
   lunch, and Bristol has not shown otherwise. Accordingly, we find nothing
   unduly restrictive in the 2,500 WLF requirement for the location of
   amenities.

   In its comments in response to the agency report, Bristol for the first
   time asserts that [deleted] would meet the agency's minimum needs, even
   though the amenities lay outside the 2,500 WLF from its building. Initial
   Comments at 3-4. Our Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted
   piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. Midwest
   Contractors, Inc.; R.E. Scherrer, Inc., B-231101, B-231101.2, Aug. 8,
   1988, 88-2 CPD para. 118 at 4. The SFO's reference to 2,500 WLF clearly
   indicated that the agency's concern was on the "walkability" of the
   distance to amenities; if Bristol believed the agency also, or instead,
   should have considered [deleted], it should have so asserted in its
   original protest. In any event, given the obvious benefit of having
   amenities within reasonable walking distance, we think the agency
   reasonably could require that the building be within a walkable distance
   to amenities even if a shuttle or other conveyances also are available.

   Bristol asserts that VA has advised GSA that it requires [deleted], and
   that it considers the neighborhood in which Bristol's building is located
   unacceptable. Since the SFO does not specify these restrictions, the
   protester asserts that its offer could be rejected on the basis of
   undisclosed evaluation criteria.

   While an agency does not have the discretion to announce one evaluation
   scheme in a solicitation and then make source selection decisions based on
   another--Hattal & Assocs., B-243357, B-243357.2, July 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD
   para. 90 at 7--there is nothing to suggest that GSA has changed the
   evaluation scheme here from that set forth in the amended SFO, or that it
   intends to apply undisclosed criteria. In this regard, although VA
   expressed a "requirement" for [deleted], the contracting officer explains
   that, based on a market survey, she determined that [deleted] would not be
   considered a special requirement and that VA both understood this and
   approved the SFO without the requirement. Supplemental Contracting
   Officer's Statement para. 3. In any case, Bristol's allegations in this
   regard constitute mere speculation as to the manner in which GSA will
   evaluate the offers, which is insufficient to sustain a protest. See Delta
   Ventures, B-238655, June 25, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 588 at 4.[3]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] An earlier version of the location amenities clause called for
   employee services amenities to be located within four blocks of the
   offered building. Bristol alleged in its initial protest that referring to
   food amenities in terms of WLF and other amenities in terms of a number of
   blocks rendered the clause ambiguous. GSA amended the provision after the
   protest was filed and Bristol withdrew this issue.

   [2] In response to another protest filed by Bristol, which involved a
   similar 2,500 WLF requirement, GSA explained that the average person could
   walk 2,500 feet in approximately 7.5 minutes, making for a potential
   roundtrip of 15 minutes to travel and leaving only 15 minutes for eating
   or carrying out other errands. Bristol Group, Inc.--Union Station Venture,
   B-298086, B-298086.3, May 30, 2006, 2006 CPD para. __ at 4.

   [3] Bristol's allegation of a VA bias  is based on a declaration from VA's
   management analyst that "[a]fter a site visit to [Bristol's] building . .
   . I again expressed the requirement that both employees and visitors to
   the VA location be able to have easy access to amenities that would allow
   them to meet their 30 minute lunch allotment." Declaration of Management
   Analyst para. 5. This communication simply restates the importance of the
   location amenities requirement to VA; it in no way indicates a bias on the
   part of VA or GSA.