The protester claimed the agency’s square footage requirement was unduly restrictive. It argued the agency did not need as much space as it claimed due to teleworking and electronic storage. GAO disagreed, reasoning that all agency employees had to work in the office on Wednesdays, and the agency’s road to a paperless environment was far from complete.
CS 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC, GAO B-423215
- Protest – The protester challenged certain terms of the request for lease proposal (RLP) as unduly restrictive of competition or otherwise failing to adequately reflect the agency’s requirements. Specifically, the protester challenged the square footage requirement, single-building requirement, and area of consideration. It claimed these were not necessary to meet the agency’s needs.
- Square Footage Requirement – The RLP reduced the square feet from the agency’s prior office footprint. The protester alleged this square footage requirement was still overstated. It contended that teleworking, online research tools, and electronic court records and filings obviated the need for so much space. GAO disagreed. All employees were required to be in the office on Wednesdays. The agency’s mission entailed the defense of criminal cases. This required confidentiality for communications and the storing of files which could not be done in a shared space. Additionally, although the agency was transferring its data to digital storage, the likelihood of a paperless environment was unfeasible for awhile. Thus, a shared, smaller space would not meet the agency’s needs.
- Single Building Requirement – The protester argued the agency didn’t need its office in one building as its current office occupied two buildings. The agency’s justified its requirement that all components in one building would make for more efficient work flow and access to documents. Additionally, multiple buildings would duplicate security and information technology infrastructure costs. GAO found the agency’s justification reasonable and that the protester had not presented sufficient evidence to rebut it.
- Area of Consideration – The protester argued the agency’s expansion to a location outside of walking distance to the federal courthouse did not meet agency needs. GAO dismissed the protest ground because the protester was not an interested party. The protester’s building was already within the area of consideration listed in the RLP. As such, it was not affected by the agency’s area of consideration.
The protester was represented by Gordon N. Griffin, Roza Sheffield, and Richard J. Ariel of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency was represented by Marilyn M. Paik and Aaron Zambrano of GSA. Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
