721 Medical Center Property, LLC (B-423227; B-423227.2)

You should not care.

Category: GSA lease, facility setback

Date: 12 March 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-423227.pdf

721 Medical Center Property, LLC (MCP) protested GSA’s request for lese proposals (RLP) for DHS tenant space in Wilmington, NC, contending that the RLP’s 200-yard setback from “protected areas” (such as daycares) and a co-location requirement unduly restricted competition. MCP’s building, an incumbent location, failed the distance test by being only sixty-two yards from an adjacent daycare. MCP also argued that its proposed mitigations, including a high barrier fence, made the requirement unreasonable.

GSA countered that the setback was essential to satisfy DHS’s facility guidelines and a 2021 DHS memorandum prohibiting ICE and CBP enforcement actions near sensitive locations. The co-location requirement supported agency goals to reduce administrative space and costs by sharing facilities across ICE, USCG, and CBP. GSA also showed that the setback was reduced during the procurement—from 250 to 200 yards—to improve competition.

• Setback requirement justified by enforcement policy and facility design: GAO found the 200-yard rule reasonable given ICE’s planned in-office enforcement activities and the DHS directive avoiding actions near protected areas.
• Co-location supported by DHS cost-saving goals: The co-location was rational, tied to space efficiency and interagency collaboration, and not shown to be unnecessarily restrictive.
• Prior leases at the same site irrelevant: GAO emphasized that changing policy needs and DHS’s evolving enforcement footprint justified differing requirements over time.
• Mitigation offers irrelevant: MCP’s fence proposal did not override the agency’s reasonable judgment or negate the policy foundation of the setback.

The protest was denied. GAO found the challenged requirements reasonably supported by DHS mission needs and consistent with procurement law.

Digest

Protest challenging solicitation requirements as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the record supports the agency’s position that the requirements are reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs.