Elnur | Shutterstock

Protest alleging that awardee was ineligible for award of a lease is sustained. The protester alleged that the awardee had proposed property in a floodplain, which was prohibited by the solicitation. The agency alleged that it had determined that the floodplain would not affect the lease. GAO, however, found that the contemporaneous record contained no evidence showing that the agency had actually analyzed the floodplain issue. Indeed, GAO noted, the record did not show how the agency reached many of its conclusions and was bereft of any assessment of whether proposals actually met the solicitation’s criteria.

The General Services Administration posted a request for lease proposals, seeking space in Nevada. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. Public Properties, LLC and PMMC Ltd. submitted proposals. GSA awarded the contract to PMMC. Public protested.

Public argued that PMMC was ineligible for award because its property fell within a 100-year floodplain, which the solicitation prohibited. GSA argued that it had reasonably determined that the proposal was technically acceptable because only a portion of PMMC’s property was in the floodplain.

GAO reasoned that GSA may be correct insofar as it could have evaluated the proposal as being only partially within a floodplain. The problem was that it did not appear from the record that the agency had made such determination. The record only showed that a National Environmental Policy Act program manager had concluded that PMMC’s property fell within a 500-year floodplain. But nothing in the record had indicated whether he had analyzed the potential impacts related to a 100-year flood event.

GAO asked GSA to provide evidence of 100-year analysis. GSA contended that the National Environmental Policy Act program manager had confirmed after award that the 100-year floodplain did not pose a threat. GOA requested the GSA provided evidence that reflected the determination that PMMC’s property would not be affected by the 100-year floodplain. But GSA simply referred the GAO to program manager’s analysis of the 500-year floodplain.

GAO determined that GSA’s post-protest explanation of the floodplain issue was not persuasive. The floodplain memo failed to acknowledge that a portion of PMMC’s property lied within a 100-year floodplain. While GSA claimed that the program manager had confirmed that the 100-year floodplain would not have an impact, there was no documentation of this analysis. The record was thus devoid of contemporaneous documentation to support GSA’s post-protest explanation. Accordingly, the record was insufficient for GAO to conclude that GSA’s evaluation had been reasonable.

Public also argued that GSA failed to document its technical evaluation of other aspects of proposals other than the floodplain. GAO agreed, finding that the there was virtually no contemporaneous evaluation of whether offerors met the space and amenity requirements set forth in the solicitation. The record was wholly devoid of how the agency reached its conclusions and was bereft of any assessment of whether proposals met the solicitation’s criteria.

Public also challenged the price evaluation, arguing that PMMC failed to provide a Common Area Factor in calculating its price. But GAO found that the PMMC had chosen a Common Area Factor of zero and thus could reasonably leave that factor blank in its analysis.

Although GAO sustained the protest, it noted that the lease did not contain a termination for convenience clause. In the absence of such a clause, GAO ordinarily does not recommend that the termination of award. Thus, GAO recommended reimbursement of Public’s proposal preparation and protest costs.

Public is represented by Robert C. MacKichan, Gordon Griffin, Hillary J. Freund, and Adam T. Adcock of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency is represented by Jordan K. Baker of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Heather Self and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.