Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is denied where an alleged lack of specifications is overblown, and where the purported failure to include cost estimates was not an ambiguity so much as a desire that the agency protect the protester from price competition. GAO also dismissed a challenge to the agency’s conduct of discussions as premature.
Centre Market Buildings LLC protested a solicitation issued by the General Services Administration for a lease of office and laboratory space. Centre argued that the solicitation did not adequately communicate GSA’s requirements and thus made intelligent competition impossible.
Centre argued that the solicitation lacked specifications with respect to maintenance and the space needed for infrastructure and equipment. GAO did not agree, noting that revisions to the solicitation included special requirements that outlined the government’s requirements for the building. Moreover, the solicitation required that proposals should be tailored to each offeror’s building. Thus, offerors, not the government, were responsible for identifying the equipment and systems that would be included in the lease.
Centre also argued that the solicitation was ambiguous because it did not identify the magnitude of costs associated with laboratory construction. Without these figures, Centre argued, offerors unfamiliar with laboratory construction could underestimate the amount of costs.
GAO found that rather than identifying an ambiguity, Centre was simply complaining that the solicitation did not sufficiently shield it from the risk of being undercut by competitors. While the solicitation required offerors to assume the risk of estimating the costs of a laboratory, risk is inherent in most contracts, and firms must use their professional expertise and judgment to anticipate performance costs. Given that offerors were proposing their own spaces, GSA could not have eliminated all uncertainties in drafting its specifications.
Finally, Centre objected to GSA’s conduct of discussions, claiming they were not meaningful. GAO dismissed this argument, noting that a pre-award challenge to discussions is premature.
Centre is represented by Richard L. Moorhouse and JĂłzef S. Przygrodski of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The government is represented by Leigh Erin S. Izzo of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Christina Sklarew participated in preparation of the decision.
