text:
—This was a reality check. St. Joe's might be reloading with three freshmen in the starting lineup, but the Hawks were tougher and quicker. One of the worst rebounding teams in the nation last year—one that outrebounded Norfolk State and Fairfield by just one apiece last week—they went plus-8 on the glass against Rutgers.
—Wither Dane Miller? Give Miller (2 points on 1-of-5 shooting) credit for standing up and taking blame for the loss in his postgame interviews. But Miller has to assert himself more—way more. His early foul trouble came as a result of poor decisions and he was practically invisible after that, save a couple of nice passes in the final five minutes. If he doesn't get more aggressive, losses like this are going to pile up. It was interesting to hear Phil Martelli say that the primary defensive focus was on stopping James Beatty (9 points), not Miller.
—Rutgers shot 10-of-19 from the free-throw line. This appears to be a chronic problem, probably due to guys playing too many minutes out of necessity. A lot of front irons were clanged.
—St. Joe's, which has five Jersey boys in its rotation, is going to be very good down the line. Martelli said center C.J. Aiken (9 points, 5 boards) served as best man in his brother's wedding during the day and caught a ride to the arena in time for the game.
—It's always a thrill to watch hoops in The Palestra. You gotta love an 83-year-old gym (with windows) where the players and coaches sit on the first row of the bleachers. The crowd of 5,219 was about two-thirds St. Joe's supporters.
Mike Rice: "We didn't have an edge tonight. There was no physicality in our defense. They dribbled around us and did what they wanted to do. That was a soft mental and physical game by Rutgers University tonight."
Dane Miller: "Of all the games we played so far, this was the worst. I was too passive in the beginning. I fully take the blame for this. I lost the game tonight."
Rice: "Dane's stat line doesn't help us win at all. When you're supposed go-to guy is sitting on the bench and you're calling plays for him and he's not getting to the rim, he's got to learn."
Rice, on facing mentor Phil Martelli: "It wasn't very good, I got an L. He's done so much for me—I have so much respect for him and for Saint Joseph's program. When the ball goes up I couldn't care less who it is, I want to win, and it isn't a good feeling when you take an L. I don't care who is on the other side."
Phil Martelli on Dane Miller: "Certainly Miller being an All-Big East rookie last year it has to have some impact on the way you play . . . Miller's a really nice player, a multi-talented player, a heavy right-handed player, but we really started our game plan with (James) Beatty. I thought he was the primary guy for them."


text:
There are no items in your cart at this time.
We do more than shoes here at Footwear etc.! In fact, you can upgrade your entire wardrobe from head to toe when you browse our stylish women's footwear, handbag, backpacks and accessories from top designers. From UGG®, Taos, New Balance, Hobo Bags, Vionic with Orthaheel Technology, OluKai, Naot and Merrell, we have what you need for the most comfortable, fashionable experience when you leave the house. It's never been easier to find old favorites and discover new trends at the same time, all in one location!
Sign up to receive new arrival, sale & special event info from us.
Note: we do not share your personal information with anyone. Period.
"I have been meaning to write you at Footwear etc for quite some time to thank you for selling MBTs! I hope that you continue to sell them for as long as they make them. I had foot surgery 5 years ago and since then the only shoe that I can wear comfortably is an MBT. Thanks to Footwear etc I am able to order MBTs, try them on, return them for free if they don't fit correctly, and to keep the MBTs that do fit properly. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. I rave about Footwear etc to all of my friends and family. Please continue to carry many different styles of MBTs!! There is a big demand out there for MBTs and I appreciate you selling them!"
©2020 Footwear etc.. All Rights Reserved. For any questions or assistance call 1-800-720-0572.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
For years automotive aftermarket companies have been engineeringperformance suspension kits for classic cars, and they show no signs ofslowing down any time soon. Most of the musclecar focus has been on themost popular models, such as first- and second-gen Camaros, Chevelles,Tri-Fives ('55-57 Chevys), and Mustangs. And it's no secret thesecompanies are making some serious bank--and rightfully so. The quality ofavailable product and technical advancements provide us with better thanstock suspension components in terms of functionality, performance,safety, and looks. It's a big win for the parts makers and the consumer.
Now that the most popular models of the classic car genre have productdeveloped for them, we're beginning to see some of the slightly lessdesirable models get their day in the sun within the aftermarket world.
Take, for example, '68-74 Novas--get 'em while you can. These arebecoming rare, and some consider them to be the last affordablemusclecar. In today's market a first-gen Camaro, especially '69s, andmost any Chevelle will take your wallet for a major hit, so a '68-74Nova might be the way to go if you want to get into some vintageAmerican muscle at a reasonable price. Recently, we've seen a number ofaftermarket companies introduce restoration and upgrade parts for this"classic." Suspension companies are getting in the groove, and HotchkisSport Suspension is right in the mix developing new high-performancesuspension upgrade packages.
John Hotchkis of Hotchkis Performance (www.hotchkis.net) recently introduced us to a fairly typical'72 Nova purchased by a young, ambitious high schooler who took hisdaily driver, added some performance upgrades, and did some weekend dragracing. The car has a few bolt-on mods like headers, intake manifold,carburetor, and some dated slapper bars. This thing was the absolutedefinition of old school.
Now that the owner has outgrown his drag phase and his driving palatehas somewhat matured, he wanted to take his quarter-miler and buildsomething with a little more functionality--a great street driver orweekend cruiser that could give new sports cars trouble on the twistybits of PCH if he so desired. That's more his style.
We here at Nova magazine are always up for some track day fun, so wetook the mainly stock "hot rod" out for some before and after tracktesting. We figured it would be a great way to show the performancedifference between a Nova with a stock, used-up suspension like the onemany of you readers drive and bolt on some quality engineered suspensioncomponents from Hotchkis Sport Suspension.
When building a car with performance suspension components, you'll stillwant the vehicle to be street-worthy. Oftentimes car guys tend tooverlook the driveability aspect of a suspension upgrade package. Sure,you can build a car that kicks ass at the track, but you'll want thatsame suspension to be accommodating in everyday driving situations aswell. That's where spring rates, suspension geometry, alignmentspecifications, and shock valving are so important. The pros at Hotchkistake pride in their performance suspension packages being both tracksteady and street ready.
For this suspension upgrade, we started with the Hotchkis TVS (Total Vehicle System) for '68-74 Novas. Thekit includes front and rear hollow sway bars (all hardware and dogboneend links included), 2-inch lowering front sport coil springs, 2-inchdrop rear sport leaf springs, tie rod sleeves, and all the necessarymounting hardware and spring pads. Since this car was going for thefull-tilt suspension upgrade, we added in upper and lower A-arms, tierods, steering, pitman arms, Hotchkis/Bilstein shocks, and Hotchkissubframe connectors for good measure. We also converted the car from theoriginal show-reacting manual steering to power steering with a steeringbox and accessories from Flaming River.
At The Track
Baseline Test
Our "before" and "after" suspension testing consists of slalom, skidpad,and braking. For slalom testing we use a 420-foot course consisting ofcones set 70 feet apart. Average speed is measured with timers placed atthe beginning and end of the course. The skidpad measures lateralg-forces by way of a 200-foot-diameter circle. Total time taken tocomplete the skidpad circumference is measured, and a mathematicalformula indicates the average lateral g-force capabilities of the car.
As you would guess, the classic Nova, sporting thirty-year-old stock suspension components, and tires designed for straight-line racing didn't fare very well in the "before" testing.
I took the Nova through the slalom course a number of times in an effortto get keyed in on the response (or lack of) and handlingcharacteristics of the tired suspension. After about 10 or so passes, Iwas able to get the car to navigate the course in a best time of 7.35seconds. That translates to 39.2 mph. Not ground breaking by any means,but a good baseline number for comparison testing. We'll give the car alittle break and take into consideration it's got some "skinnies" upfront--definitely not a huge help in this situation.
On the skidpad, we take the counterclockwise and the clockwise times,add them together, and divide by two. This gives us the average time thecar took to make its way around the circle. Due to the weight of thedriver and other considerations, times vary depending on the directionthe car is traveling. With the car whipping around the course in anaverage time of 13.13 seconds, the measured lateral g-force came to .71g's. Again, not lighting up the course, but nevertheless we have ourbaseline numbers of what a basically stock '72 Nova will do underperformance driving situations.
After Test
Once the suspension upgrades were performed on our freshened-up '72Nova, we again hit the track and performed the same exercises at thesame location under similar conditions as with the stock suspensioncomponents.
The rejuvenated Nova, now upgraded with the Hotchkis performance suspension goodies and super grippyHoosier A6 autocross tires (treadwear rating of 40), literally camealive on the slalom and skidpad course with newfound vigor andaggression.
The first thing I noticed when getting into the car with the suspensionupgrades and track-purpose tires was the insane attitude the car hadacquired. The car revealed an instant improvement over the stockcomponents. After a few warm-up runs to get reacquainted with the car, Iwas able to drive aggressively and managed to make a best pass of 5.72seconds in the 420-foot slalom course. That translates to an averagespeed of 50.6 mph!
On the skidpad the car managed an 11.47-second run. That numbertranslates to .94 g's--a vast improvement over the stock suspensioncomponents.
The car's new and improved track behavior made it a blast to drive in atest situation, but I was anxious to see how the car would feel on cityroads. So I took it out on the street to check the comfort level in aneveryday driving situation. I was pleasantly surprised how thesuspension felt while on the surrounding roads. The ride was nicer thanI had expected, and I would have no problem taking this car out for along drive.
Front End Suspension Upgrades
Front end upgrades are quite possibly the most important aspect toimproved handling, especially in a classic car. By using the HotchkisTVS Nova kit, the ride height is brought down due to the 2-inch loweringsprings. This gives the car a lower center of gravity for increasedcornering response. The 1 5/8-inch sway bar also plays an important roleby reducing body roll and improving cornering. The Hotchkis tubularupper and lower A-arms offer superior strength over stock increasinghandling and control. Smooth operation and free articulation is achievedwith Delrin bushings, and the properly tuned Hotchkis/Bilstein HPS 100shocks offer optimum performance.
Rear Suspension Upgrades
The sport leaf springs offer increased handling and performance, and the2 inch lower ride height ensures better handling than stock springs.Incorporating the rear sway bar reduces body roll and increases rollstiffness, also adding to cornering capabilities.
Subframe Connectors
Subframe connectors do just what they suggest--connect the front subframeto the rear. This conjoined effort reduces chassis flex during corneringand acceleration, and makes the front and rear suspension componentswork together for better quality and performance.
Hotchkis Sport Suspension
Flaming River
Foose Wheels
Hoosier Tires
MSD Ignition


text:
Lambert Brothers is part of the Kinaxia Logistics group of companies.
Kinaxia Logistics is a leading Logistics Group within the UK haulage and warehouse sector. Businesses in the Group work together with the core purpose of enhancing customer service and increasing efficiency. Learn more here.
Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement | FORS Certificate |
UKWA Conditions |
RHA Conditions of Carriage
Privacy Policy
© Lambert Brothers Haulage Limited. All rights reserved


text:
Shop by Categories
Store Categories
All Store Items on Sale Now
More items from this Store
(1) Name : Professional Hairdressing Scissors(Cutting Scissors/Thinning Scissors)
(2) Length : 5'' (about 14.5cm)
(3) Quatity: 1 Piece/1 Pair
(4) Material:Japan 440CStainless Steel
(5) Hardness:62HRC
(6) Product Number: C1017
(7) We could customize for your own brand logo, you should send us your logo files(contain your logo picture and words), or could do for you witout any logo on the scissors, or will send to you the scissors as the following pictures brand logo!!!
China post air mail is for free, it usually takes 20-30 days to finish delivery.
If you want to get faster shipping for urgent situation, please contact us for more details, we will offer you a good solution:
EMS takes 7-14 working days for delivery;
DHL or UPS takes about 3-5 working days for delivery;
You can choose them if you want faster shipping, but you should bear the freight!
International Buyers – Please Note
(1) Import duties, taxes and charges are not included in the item price or shipping charges. These charges are the buyer`s responsibility.
(2) Please check with your country`s customs office to determine what these additional costs will be prior to bidding/buying.
(3) We guarantee item will be shipped ASAP, but we are not responsible for the delay by customs.
When you receive the goods, if u satisfied with the purchase and our total service, kindly take a minute to complete the order and give us a positive feedback,your comment is very important in our business,also it is motivation we serve u even better next time. If u have any other question,kindly let us know, we will do our best to help you till you satisfield!
Hope we can do more and more business through this sample order!
There are many payment methods available on DHgate.com such as credit cards, real-time bank transfers, offline payments (bank transfers and Western Union). You can choose a method which is the most convenient for you. To protect your interests, your payment will be temporarily held by DHgate, and will not be released to us until you receive your order and are satisfied with it.
If you want to exchange the items received, you must contact us within 3 days of the receipt of your order. And you should pay the additional shipping fees incurred and the items returned should be kept in their original status.
Since your feedback is very important to our business`s development, we sincerely invite you to leave positive feedback for us if you are satisfied with our product and service. It`ll just take you 1 minute. Thank you!
1. Shipping cost: Click "Shipping and payment" tab on the product detail page, and you will see the delivery details. You can calculate shipping cost by inputting the required information.
2. Time in transit: Transit time varies with different shipping methods.
3. Item Processing Time: The processing time for a specific order varies with the product type and stock status. Mostly, processing time can be 3 to 15 working days.
China Wholesale | Security & Privacy | About Us | China Manufacturers | Seller Home | New Products | Best Sellers | Customer Service | Terms of Use | Russian | Portuguese | Italian | Spanish | French | German | Turkey | 한국어 | العربية
Copyright Notice © 2004 - 2020 DHgate.com All rights reserved. License


text:
Internet privacy lawsuits, especially of the class-action variety, have been sprouting up everywhere in the past few years. Some of them have been settled for considerable sums, especially when companies are sued over publicly acknowledged privacy screw-ups that they've already taken heat for. One of the most notable was the $9.5 million Facebook settlement over its Beacon program, which broadcast users' activities from other websites—including what they bought on various shopping sites—in their Facebook news feed.
The number of Facebook users affected by that class-action case was huge—the class was determined to be 3.6 million users at the end of the day. In part due to the large class, the judge allowed a so-called cy pres award, which is when a payment is made to a charity related to the issues in the case rather than to the actual class members. The Facebook settlement will go to a newly created Digital Trust Foundation (DTF), which will fund initiatives related to Internet privacy. $2.3 million of the settlement money will go to fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys.
But the case didn't end quietly. Objections were filed by some class members, supported by advocacy group Public Citizen. "[T]he only "relief" for the class would be a privacy foundation established by Facebook—an organization whose founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, believes that people no longer care about personal privacy," wrote the objecting lawyers. The settlement was upheld by a 2-1 vote on appeal, and the objectors asked for a larger appeals panel to re-hear the case.
The votes are in, and a majority of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit voted not to re-hear the case. However, six judges who did vote to re-hear the case wrote a vigorous dissent [PDF], published yesterday. They argue that in cy pres settlements, 9th Circuit judges have historically rejected settlements "where the selected charity lacks 'a substantial record of service' in remedying the types of wrongs alleged," or where the charity doesn't do work that will benefit class members. The DTF was created just for this settlement, and Facebook users who were harmed by Beacon have no assurance that its open-ended promise to focus on Internet privacy will benefit them at all. "If fashioning an open-ended, one-sentence mission statement is all it takes to earn cy pres settlement approval in our court, we have completely eviscerated the meaning of our previously controlling case law," wrote dissenting 9th Circuit Judge Milan Smith.
Plaintiffs' lawyer Scott Kamber told Reuters that he viewed the dissent as a criticism of 9th Circuit law on cy pres awards and was happy the money would shortly be made available. Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said that DTF "will fund worthy projects that will help protect and improve Internet users' privacy, safety, and security."
The issue of how to deal with cy pres awards, or whether they're appropriate at all, will continue to loom if Internet privacy litigation keeps growing. The Google Buzz settlement was dealt with in a similar way, and the chunk of cash that became available actually caused some conflict between different privacy groups.


text:
Sometimes it pays to check things out in depth. My feet have always been extremely pain, wrapped or unwrapped. My left was always very swollen and red. The psychotherapists who now wrap my feet said they didn't think that kind of pain was a result of my Lymphedema and they were right. I requested and finally was able to have my feet x-rayed and it turns out I have a lot of small bone spurs in my feet. Many more in my left foot than my right. Apparently caused because I have been unable to wear shoes due to the swelling of my feet so I had no support for my feet and adding the extra weight of my legs and the bones just couldn't handle it.
I now have my modified "Crocs" and I'm starting to notice a difference in the pain in my feet. Apparently the small bone spurs will gradually heal as I continue to give my feet more support and hopefully lost more weight as a result of the wrapping. So far I have lost 6 liters of fluid from my left leg and now its mainly my calf that is retaining fluid. My thigh and foot are small again and almost look normal again. Lol.
Just wanted to let you know what I had found out. Lymphedema is an ongoing mystery to say the least.


text:
Lucid Men's Red and White Sliders
Lucid is a statement style for your slider collection. With a raised repeating logo, in bold contrasting colours, this style was made to stand out.
Featuring our new Flexiform technology with ultra bendable footbeds, custom contoured to your foot shape and slip resistant signature sole for the ultimate in all day comfort.
Your Slydes are shipped from our Manchester HQ. If you're in the UK, your Slydes will be with you in 3-4 working days, or you can get next day delivery if you prefer not to hang around.
UK delivery is FREE. We also offer free UK returns and exchanges to make sure you get the perfect fit.
Slydes also ship to Europe, the USA, and the rest of the world, in 5-10 working days.
While you're waiting, you'll be able to track your delivery online from dispatch to your door, as all orders for both the UK & worldwide are sent fully trackable.
|Standard UK Delivery
Next Working Day Delivery (Order before 2pm Mon-Fri)
|International (Rest of World)
Wearing your Slydes
Slydes are designed to be comfortable all day, made with materials chosen specifically to avoid that annoying rubbing feeling. Style is important to us, but so is substance.
Taking care of your Slydes
Slydes are designed to look great, but they're pretty tough too. They should stay looking fresh and new if you wipe any marks away with a damp cloth.
If you change your mind (we don't think you will)
Email us at firstname.lastname@example.com - we'll give you a special code and a return address. Make sure you post your Slydes back to us in the original packaging within 7 days. Your money will be back in your account within 7 working days, excluding the delivery charge (that bit's non-refundable).


text:
This is a set of numbered discs from 0 – 20, each with a hole in the top so that you hang them up. A lovely way to set up a course, code breaking game or treasure hunt whilst engaging with numbers.
The number height is 25 mm. Please note that each disc may vary slightly in size, due to the nature of the natural product.
*Please note that this is a natural product. It will have knots and imperfections and there may be small cracks in the wood. This is all perfectly normal and does not detract from the quality of the product.


text:
Hi I have this little issue with my program.
I have a class called Library which has a one to one relation with a class called collection and class collection has one to many relation with a class called Holding which is an array list. Also class library has a one to one relation with a class called Member. What I would like to know and which I don't know how to do is, how can I modify thing inside the array list of books through the member class.
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Thanks In Advance


text:
Eastern Letterpress Thank You Card
Eastern Letterpress Thank You Card, Item# TYWILP2508CC
Note: Sparkles are simulated and will not light up.
Eastern Letterpress Thank You Card, Item# TYWILP2508CC
Note: Sparkles are simulated and will not light up.
Eastern Digital Thank You Card
$1.09 - $1.69
Eastern Letterpress
$3.08 - $6.99
This foldover notecard features a modern geometric design flowing across the page. The contrast between the bold and thin lines add depth and dimension to this super contemporary beauty.
Your custom text and graphics are letterpress printed on your choice of luxury Crane Recycled Cotton stock. Ink colors are changeable once you enter iDesign - 30 great colors to choose from.
Click here to learn more about the Letterpress Printing Technique.
You will be able to select the typestyle and ink colors to use for your personalized text during the design process. Start by clicking on the green 'Personalize and Continue' button. We recommend using the default typestyle and ink colors.
|Estimated Postage Required:
|$0.55 stamp - if other items are not added into the Envelope. Click here for additional postage information.
|Item Components:
|Foldover Notecard
|Card Dimensions:
|5 1/8" x 3 5/8" (W x H)
|Printing Process:
|Paper Weight:
|Multiple Stock Options
|Typestyle Shown:
|Calli and Lainie
|Matching Ink Color:
|Copper or choose from 30 other great ink color options
|Blank Envelopes included


text:
Dear Customers, As a part of product lifecycle management, we have planned to upgrade our servers from Windows Server 2012 to Windows Server 2019. Upgrading to Windows Server 2019 can be done in-place on the server and does not require any additional changes in server or there will be no change or update on pre-installed application. As per the ... Læs mere »
Date and Time: .US - September 26 2017, 2 AM - 12 PM (UTC) .CO - October 26 2017, 2 AM - 12 PM (UTC) Duration: 10 hoursDetails: Neustar, the registry operator of .US and .CO domains is completing maintenance on their backend systems. In both instances, the actual downtime will start at 2 AM (UTC) and should last about 10 hours. ... Læs mere »
The registry operator, Uniregistry, has announced a number of significant price increases, taking place on September 8th, 2017 (00:00 UTC). Certain TLDs will have moderate price increases starting at $4, while others will have significant hikes up to $385 per year. We would therefore recommend any customer who already own or plan to register any ... Læs mere »
Dear Customer, We have been advised by one of our providers that they are currently the target of a large severe DDOS attacks. We are constantly in touch with the provider to get the latest update. The datacenter team is investigating the root cause and trying to identify the source of DDoS attack. We have contacted all affected customers ... Læs mere »
Microsoft has announced enf of life on windows vista, customers are urged to upgrade ASAP.
more details on our blog here
Our office will be closed from Dec 22nd 2016 until January 4th 2017.
Email/Ticket support will be available during this time, and some skeleton phone support.
We wish you a merry Xmas and a happy new year.
By now you have probably noticed the new logo/branding on the website and emails. A change was required to make somehting that was more scalable to small sizes and still be readable, such as buttons and icons, and we feel this new style better represents the Zen ideaology and well, looks cooler too :-)
We're sending out this bulletin to alert you that there is a 0 day vulnerability in the wild that affects Firefox web browsers and the Tor browser bundle. The vulnerability emerged today. We recommend you temporarily switch to a non-firefox based browser until the Firefox dev team has a chance to release a fix. That should happen quite ... Læs mere »
We have performed an upgrade to our semi-dedicated hosting and moved the MySQL and MSSQL databases to their own server.
In addition we have also switched to MariaDB instead of MySQL, which has proven to be more reliable and have better performance.
The new server address is SQL1.ZENMSP.UK


text:
Robert Pattinson arrives on the red carpet at the Los Angeles premiere of Summit Entertainment's "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" held at Mann Village Theatre on November 16, 2009 in Westwood, California.
Following Bella Swan's ill-fated 18th birthday party, Edward Cullen and his family abandon the town of Forks, Washington, in an effort to protect her from the dangers inherent in their world. As the heartbroken Bella sleepwalks through her senior year of high school, numb and alone, she discovers Edward's image comes to her whenever she puts herself in jeopardy. Her desire to be with him at any cost leads her to take greater and greater risks.
With the help of her childhood friend Jacob Black, Bella refurbishes an old motorbike to carry her on her adventures. Bella's frozen heart is gradually thawed by her budding relationship with Jacob, a member of the mysterious Quileute tribe, who has a supernatural secret of his own.
When a chance encounter brings Bella face to face with a former nemesis, only the intervention of a pack of supernaturally large wolves saves her from a grisly fate, and the encounter makes it frighteningly clear that Bella is still in grave danger. In a race against the clock, Bella learns the secret of the Quileutes and Edward's true motivation for leaving her. She also faces the prospect of a potentially deadly reunion with her beloved that is a far cry from the one she'd hoped for.
"The Twilight Saga: New Moon" opens in theaters nationwide on November 20.
Picture copyright: Tina Gill / PR Photos
- Comment


text:
Don't forget that Saturday is the annual baking contest at the Matthews Community Farmers' Market. I hope so -- I'm a judge, along with Peter Reinhart and Sam Stachon from King's Bakery.
This year's theme is local produce -- the main ingredient has to be in-season market produce, from spinach to strawberries. You can get all of the rules at www.matthewsfarmersmarket.com, including the deadlines for entering, but here are the main ones:
- This is a baking competition, so there must be a baked component to the entry.
- All entries must be made from scratch.
- The recipe used, including ingredient list, must be provided at time of entry along with the
- baker's name, address and phone number. Index cards taped to submissions work best.
- Each entry should be ample enough for at least 25 tastes. If your recipe makes only a small
- number of servings, please consider doubling or tripling it. There needs to be enough for the
- judge's table and enough to be submitted for the public tasting table.
- Please use disposable dishes or pans.
The first prize is a package that includes a market tote and T-shirt, $25 in market gift certificates and a signed copy of Peter Reinhart's book "The Joy of Gluten-Free, Sugar-Free Baking." And since the gluten-full and sugar-full among us need something, too, I'll throw in a signed copy of my book "Pecans: A Savor the South Cookbook."
If you're there, say hey.


text:
Watch this monster mowing and cleaning machine in action. I want to drive it and go wild with it. Clean every filthy thing in sight in New York, from traffic signals, building and parks to hipsters, hipsters and hipsters. Everything.
Someone in the comments said "I can't believe I watched this video in its entirety." Well, I can't believe I'm watching it again. For the third time. [Thanks Karl!]


text: REACH GT feels just like a full size road bike! Its wheel base, riding position and frame structure are basically identical to a non-folding bicycle and the smaller wheels actually make starting up much easier, giving fast and smooth acceleration. A plush front and rear suspension system neutralizes vibrations and improves control. With selected components and wide gear range, the 2017 Reach GT is the upgrade version of T20.


text:
Still going on the Peace quilt. It has required me to do some of my non-favourite sewing things - unpicking, pinning, and easing seams.
The unpicking may have been preventable (if I was a spatial genius) but I have done more unpicking, re-pressing and re-sewing on this quilt than I have ever done on any other. My usual approach to "errors" is to classify them as critical or non -critical. Non-critical errors just add to the character of the quilt. Unfortunately, with so many small pieces, every error I made was critical and needed to be fixed. I probably should have just re cut pieces and started again, but it's all done now.
And the pinning! Every seam, every join - PINNED! The suggested construction method was to make long diagonal rows and then join them. Little pieces (1 1/4 inch strips and squares), and lots of seams means lots of stretching. And despite my careful preparation, there was a lot of easing seams together and persuasive pressing to make it flat.
The whole top is on the bias, prone to stretching and if it hangs flat once it's quilted I'll be amazed. We'll see if all my careful pressing and handling helps. I'm glad I chose to do the foundation piecing on interfacing - it makes the crane blocks very stable and non stretchy.
I need to take a break from piecing, I think.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
non-favourite things
Posted by lynne at 5:21 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text: Open mind, open style. Naturalizer sandals are the most coveted styles for the warmer seasons. Start straight-forward with flat sandals made to move. We give you the perfect mix of comfort and ease for your beyond-busy days. You'll find a little extra lift goes a long way as well with Naturalizer heeled sandals and wedge sandals. The result? A heightened sense of fashion. Show off your silhouette in beautiful styles, textures and anything-but-boring colors that make an impression. Transition to a laid-back weekend look with slide sandals that require minimal effort, keeping it easy while soaking up the sun. Naturalizer sandals go with any look you put together, all the way from vacation, to the board room, to happy hour.


text:
|Religious affiliation:
|General Baptist
|Institution Type:
|Private not-for-profit
|Campus Setting:
|Great Lakes Town, distant from an urban area
|Highest Degree Offered:
|Doctor's degree - research/scholarship and professional practice
|Level of Institution:
|Four or more years
oakland city is a very religion based college. all the faculty and staff are very friendly and treat every student as family. it's more of home away from home, than…
Oakland City University is a growing private school. The school's mission statement is Enter to learn Go forth to serve. A place with spiritually strong indidviduals who all have the…
One of the most friendliest colleges ever. You get to know the staff and teachers real easily. By the end of first semester you will basically know everyone, or almost…
OCU is a faith-based college that cares more about the students' relationships with Christ than anything. It is a small school in a small town that is known for its…
Oakland City University is a great christian school with a very welcoming environment to everyone who attends. I love the school because it is rather small, but with being small…
Oakland City University is a Christian faith-based learning community dedicated to the enhancement of intellectual, spiritual, physical and social development for positive leadership.
Looks like there are no "Am I Enjoying Being Here" reviews for Oakland City University.
Have you been to this college? Take a moment to create an account with Cappex and tell us your thoughts. Rating this school will make you eligible to win the Cappex Reviews Scholarship!


text:
"Fully employed unemployed is a common problem, and it would be good to have a post about your work."
Reply to my message from Matt Law when I asked about writing about my situation.
A bit about me
First a little about myself. This post is not supposed to be my curriculum vitae, it just shows all kinds of jobs and occupations an archaeologist must be ready to take in order to have some income.
I graduated from University of Turku, Finland in 2012 from archaeology and in 2014 from folkloristics. My MA-thesis in archaeology was about the Swedish-Russo War of 1741-1743 and conflict archaeological theory. After this I did another Master of Arts degree, because the folkloristics in Turku started it's own archive studies line. In my second thesis I studied triangulation between folkloristics and archaeology. I studied as an example regular stones in inhumations, using folk archives to find explanations for the stones.
After two Master of Arts degrees I find myself most of the time unemployed. I graduated from folkloristics in May 2014, and I've had several short employments after that. Luckily I worked during my studies and paid my membership fees to Museum trade union, so after I graduated I was entitled to daily benefits – after two months of bureaucracy.
The work for archaeologists is scattered and most archaeologists in the profession face unemployment sometimes. Many times. During winter the ground is frozen, so that puts a halt to excavations. Last year (2014) I spent a total of 10 weeks as a digger after my graduation in May. I also wrote articles and held lectures at community colleges (Kansalaisopisto). I've tried to get funding to do independent research, but with no success. Year 2015 mostly repeats last year.
Here are a few photos of my fully-employed days in 2014:
Year 2015 for archaeologist
Like I wrote, year 2015 seems to repeat last year. I worked as a digger in Museovirasto (NBA, National Board of Antiquities) most of April. We circled around Pirkanmaa (Tampere region) and for an archaeologist specialized in conflict archaeology these trips were wonderful, although the excavation sites were "normal digs". Most sites were located near battlefields of the Finnish Civil War (1918), and I spotted several bullet or shrapnel holes in buildings nearby. I was fascinated with shrapnel tears in the attic of an old house. The master of the house gave me a few pieces of shrapnel as a memento, which were picked from the floor of the attic.
It's moments and discoveries like these that make this profession worth the effort.
Before this one month job I wrote articles to local news paper Turun Sanomat about the foreign volunteers in Winter War (1939 – 1940). The fee for these writings is small but every little bit helps in my situation. I also had lectures in community colleges. One was about the conflict archaeology of Late Iron Age Finland with title "Lännen pitkä miekka iskee idän sapeliin? Nuoremman rautakauden konfliktiarkeologiaa" (The long sword of west strikes the eastern scimitar? Conflict archaeology of Late Iron Age). I also held five lectures in other college about the history of guerrilla warfare, the radio intelligence in Finland before and during WWII (things I learned during making this lecture made the movie Imitation Game look rather ridiculous, by the way), War of Åland (Crimean war in Finland 1854 – 1855), the Lapland War (1944 – 45, Finns against Germans in Northern Finland) and Foreign volunteers in Finnish wars of 1939 – 1944.
Jobs like these keep me interested in things – with a deadline. It's important to have a set date, before which I have to read all the books necessary and produce a popular representation of the subject. These jobs are also an outstanding alternative to full-time alcoholism.
As a new profession I was a guide in four days trip to Carelian Isthmus (in Russia) in the beginning of May. We visited battlefields of WWII and I provided the speaks and representations. The preparations to visit Russia were thorough. I made very large maps with cardboards, contact paper and glue, which worked fine. Usually the guides just give A4-sized maps full of sings and arrows, which are incomprehensible.
This new profession was fulfilling. Sites were amazing and the trip to Russia was mostly without difficulties. Some roads were in horrible condition, but we got by. Timing was good, since the sites were clear of vegetation and we got to witness the Victory Day Celebration in Viborg.
Currently: what I'm looking for in 24th of July 2015
The trouble with being a tour guide is the same as with being a professional field archaeologist: you have to move to different sites all the time and employment time is short. I'd like to get employed in Turku, but the chances for that are poor. Second chance is to go to longer excavations to some other part of Finland. Currently the private companies do most of these kind of excavations, and so far I haven't been contacted. Usually one, two, three month excavations are rare and my only chance to get to those is in the beginning of Summer or Fall, when students are back at university. The economical situation doesn't help.
There is a program to employ people under the age of 30. However, the program ran out of money a month ago and since I haven't been on daily benefits for 300 days, I can't get this support.
This week I managed to get one actual job done. During the year 2012 I interviewed war veterans and collected lot's of material, and made a web site for the museum which employed me. Yesterday I finished the student version of these sites after many difficulties. Today I'll do the finishing touches to the site. Designing pages like these is difficult for many reasons: I have little IT-training, the software I'm using is simple – for better or worse – and it's hard to decide the visual design because I'm partly color blind.
Then there are the funds I'm trying to get from different associations or trusts to write books or to do research. The first notice will come next month, after which I hopefully can once again turn into full-time researcher. For a few months.
And there's the free stuff: reviews to professional magazines, articles with which I try to score "academic points" in case I begin doctoral studies, helping other researchers by email and of course helping other small scale field studies for which I get payed in free accommodations, travels, food and beer. I suppose stuff like this keeps archaeology running – the free work and the beer.


text:
I googled PixilOS and only found some kind of art (?) program. But the next time I booted my nice new Raspberry-Pi 3, I noticed I already have the PixelOS I had subsequently googled.mechanic wrote:Should you decide to get a RPi3 be sure to get any adaptors you may need and also the PixilOS on a microSD card.
I am rather impressed with this gadget, maybe partly because I don´t know as much about such things as some in the AmigaWorld thread. I suspect you use a different alias there than here, unless I have my Signals crossed.
I haven´t tried applying this to my X1000 problem yet. I´ll experiment a little first. I looked at a FAQ and learned that I am not the only one who can´t set the time correctly (today at 14:38 it tells me it is November 25, 09:14--I wonder if this post will be so dated?), but the answer to the problem was to get a Supervisor to fix it. Huh? Also I find it very difficult to type ¨´¨--I have to press the quote key twice to get anything. Iĺl try a different keyboard (I see I can accent vowels, áéíúó though! And umlaut them: ä!).
The thing runs a bit slow, but itś fun.


text:
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - Charts 5-7
Jump to a section:
Share Charts 5-7 with others
Do you want to earn money creating pages just like this? Gamewise is currently looking for writers, find out more here.
Around the Network
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Brainwaves
6th July, 0 replies
Are Remastered Re-Releases Getting Out of Hand?
There is often a sense of gratification when a game that you loved gets released later in an even better...
30th May, 0 replies
E3 2014: Nintendo's Last Chance to Prove the Gamepad is a Game Changer
It's obvious that Nintendo's Wii U and its unique Gamepad controller concept has not been a runaway...
10th January, 0 replies
Best Wii U Game of 2013
The Wii U has had an extremely rough year, with sales so poor many are claiming (hoping) Nintendo will...
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Walkthrough
Video Walkthrough
Parts 1 and 2 Parts 3 and 4 Parts 5 and 6 Parts 7 and 8 Parts 9 and 10 Parts 11 and 12 Parts 13 and 14 Parts 15 and 16 Parts 17 and 18 Parts 19 and 20 Parts 21 and 22
Hero of Time
Outset Island The Forest of Fairies Pirate Ship
The Adventure Begins
Forsaken Fortress Windfall Island Pawprint Island
The First Dungeon
Dragon Roost Island Dragon Roost Cavern Back to the Island
Sailing the Open Sea
The First Detour Forest Haven The Second Detour Forbidden Woods
The Three Pearls
Windfall Island (2) Outset Island (2) The Third Detour The Fourth Detour Placing the Pearls Tower of the Gods Hyrule Castle
A Familiar Place
Forsaken Fortress (2) Hyrule Castle (2)
Upgrading Abilities
Mother & Child Isles Fire Mountain Ice Ring Isle
The Earth Temple
Headstone Island The Fifth Detour Dragon Roost Island (2) Earth Temple
The Wind Temple
Gale Isle Forest Haven (2) Wind Temple
The Triforce Charts
Charts 1-4 Charts 5-7 Chart 8 Triforce Shards
Ganon's Tower
Dragon Roost Barrier Forbidden Woods Barrier Earth Temple Barrier Wind Temple Barrier Puppet Ganon Ganondorf


text:
Apartment Rivulus ILIĆ 4 is situated in the Rivarella zone. Only 80 meters from the beach and 80 meters from the center of the city. It is on the first floor, with one bedroom, one living room with kitchen, bathroom and two big balconies
Features & Resource types
Property details
Additional services available (not included in the price)
Sport services available on site (not included in the price)
|App tariff
|01.01 - 01.05
01.10 - 31.12
|01.05 - 01.06
|01.06 - 01.07
01.09 - 01.10
|01.07 - 01.09
The general conditions for offering accommodation are part of the contract between Epoca Turizam d.o.o., as a travel agency, and the traveller who accepts the service. Everything that is listed in the general conditions represents a legal commitment for the traveller, as well as for Epoca Turizam d.o.o. The general travel conditions are published on the web pages of Epoca Turizam d.o.o.
Epoca Turizam d.o.o. guarantees accommodation services according to the information stated on epoca360.com, according to the description, price and availability and in accordance with the confirmed reservation.
The accommodation units are described according to official categorisation and based on an on-site visit to the actual building. The activities, excursions and tours are described according to the information given by our service providers.
Guests can enter the accommodations units from 14:00h onwards; upon their departure guests must vacate the accommodation by 10:00h. Pets are allowed only at accommodations units which specifically state that pets are allowed at an extra charge.
Accommodation Prices include: weekly change of bed linens, toilet paper (only on the day of arrival), use of water, electricity, gas and final cleaning. Guests are required to leave the apartment in the state that they found it in.
The standards of accommodation, nutrition, service and others, of places and countries are different and cannot be compared. Epoca Turizam d.o.o. offers those services listed on its Internet web page, catalogue and other printed material of Epoca Turizam d.o.o., which is not necessarily equal to those services offered by other selling agencies.
If the traveller did not make a special request for a room/apartment, he will accept the given reservation in the accommodation desired, listed in the brochure and price list. If possible Epoca Turizam d.o.o. will try to meet additional requests of the traveller for the accommodation (comfort, room view, 1st floor or ground floor), but cannot guarantee to fulfill all additional requests. READ MORE
There are no reviews for this property yet.
Contact us and let us know what you are looking for.
We have countless wonder experiences waiting for you.


text:
One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; King Farm Associates, LLC
B-404896,B-404896.2,B-404896.3,B-404896.4,B-404896.5,B-404896.6,: Jun 20, 2011
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
(202) 512-8278
Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
One Largo Metro LLC, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC, of Largo, Maryland; and King Farm Associates, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, protest the selection of Fishers Lane/JBG Companies, of Rockville, Maryland, as the apparent successful offeror under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 08-011, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office space for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
We sustain the protests.
B-404896; B-404896.2; B-404896.3; B-404896.4; B-404896.5; B-404896.6; B-404896.7, One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; King Farm Associates, LLC, June 20, 2011
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of: One Largo Metro LLC; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; King Farm Associates, LLC
File: B-404896; B-404896.2; B-404896.3; B-404896.4; B-404896.5; B-404896.6; B-404896.7
Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., Joshua C. Drewitz, Esq., Ronald S. Gart, Esq., and Caroline A. Keller, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for One Largo Metro LLC; Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq., William M. Jack, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Caitlin E. Stapleton, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Metroview Development Holdings, LLC; Angela B. Styles, Esq., Derek R. Mullins, Esq., Gunjan R. Talati, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for King Farm Associates, LLC, the protesters.
Ronald A. Schechter, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Bassel C. Korkor, Esq., Amy B. Rifkind, Esq., and Derrick L. Williams, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for Fishers Lane/JBG Companies, the intervenor.
Lesley M. Busch, Esq., Jay Bernstein, Esq., Katharine Healy, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
1. Protest is sustained where the agency failed to consider both the variety and quantity of amenities offered under the access to amenities subfactor, as required by the solicitation.
2. Protest is sustained where the head of the contracting activity did not meaningfully consider the evaluated differences in the offerors' proposals in her selection decision.
One Largo Metro LLC, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Metroview Development Holdings, LLC, of Largo, Maryland; and King Farm Associates, LLC, of Vienna, Virginia, protest the selection of Fishers Lane/JBG Companies, of Rockville, Maryland, as the apparent successful offeror under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. 08-011, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office space for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The SFO, issued by GSA in July 2008, sought offers for a 15-year lease of up to 935,401 rentable square feet of office space in suburban Maryland to collocate HHS operating divisions that are currently housed in four separate locations.[1] See Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. Suburban Maryland was defined by the SFO as consisting of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. SFO at 7.
Offerors were informed that award would be made on a "best value" basis, considering price and three technical factors: location; building characteristics; and past performance and key personnel. SFO at 11. The location and building characteristics factors were stated to be of equal weight, and to be each significantly more important than the past performance and key personnel factor. SFO amend. 7, at 1. Price was stated to be significantly less important than the combined weight of the technical factors. SFO at 11.
The following subfactors were identified under each non-price evaluation factor:
Access to Existing Metrorail
Access to Amenities
Building Characteristics
Number of Buildings
Planning Efficiency and Flexibility
Quality of Building Architecture, Building Systems, and Construction
Past Performance and Key Personnel
Past Performance
Key Personnel
SFO amend. 7, at 1. Under the location factor, the access to existing Metrorail subfactor was stated to be significantly more important than the access to amenities subfactor and more important than any other subfactor. The SFO indicated that the subfactors under the building characteristics factor were in descending order of importance. Id.
With regard to access to an existing Metrorail station, offerors were required to calculate the distance from the main entrance of their proposed buildings to the entrance of the nearest Metrorail station. SFO at 11. In addition, offerors were required to identify the walking route for distances less than 2,500 walkable linear feet (wlf). For distances greater than 2,500 wlf, offerors were required to propose a shuttle schedule. The SFO also stated that the highest evaluation credit would be provided based upon how close a proposed building was to an existing Metrorail station.[2] Id.
With regard to access to amenities, offerors were informed that "[o]ffers will be evaluated for amenities within the building or otherwise available" within one mile of the building's main entrance, and that evaluations would consider "the quantity and variety of the following amenities: fitness facilities, postal facilities . . . restaurants, day care center, fast food establishments, dry cleaners, [banks and ATMs], convenience shops, card/gift shops, hair salons, automotive service stations, and drug stores."[3] SFO amend. 8, at 1-2. The SFO further advised that the best rating would be given to offers that provide the greatest variety and quantity of amenities existing at the time of occupancy within the building or within 1,500 wlf of the building.[4] SFO amend. 8, at 2. The SFO stated that amenities must currently exist or the offeror must provide evidence that the amenities will be available near the time of occupancy, such as construction contracts, signed leases or service contracts, letters of intent, "or any other credible or verifiable evidence." Id.
With respect to the evaluation of price, offerors were informed that the agency would calculate a present value of the annual price per square foot, including any option prices. SFO at 16. The offerors were instructed to propose an itemized lease rate per square foot that would include property financing, insurance, taxes, management, and profit. See id. at 19. In this regard, the SFO provided that the lessor's building rent could be adjusted to account for changes in real estate taxes after the tax base for the property was established. Id. at 26. The tax base would be established after the first full tax year of occupancy, and would take into account all improvements in any fully renovated or newly constructed building. Id. at 26'27.
The SFO also informed offerors that the agency was required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for each offered site. Id. at 24. Offerors were required to provide a basis for GSA to determine--in accordance with the NEPA, as implemented by the GSA NEPA Desk Guide--that the proposed building site would receive either a categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or a finding of no significant impact.[5] The SFO provided that proposals that offered sites that would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement would be considered technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.[6] Id. at 25.
In December 2008, GSA received proposals from five firms, including Fishers Lane, One Largo, Metroview, and King Farm. CO's Statement at 6. Fishers Lane offered to renovate the building that currently contains the majority of the HHS staff impacted by the lease; the other four offerors offered to construct new buildings. Because of funding constraints, the procurement was suspended until February 2010. Then the SFO was amended to revise anticipated occupancy dates, request revised offers, and to, among other things, reduce the minimum ceiling height from 8'6" to 8'0".[7] After receiving revised offers from all five firms in March 2010, GSA engaged in several rounds of clarifications and discussions, and requested final revised offers. CO's Statement at 7-9.
With regard to the requirement for an environmental assessment, GSA asked the offerors to address any identified possible impacts related to their offered site in the agency's draft environmental assessment.[8] See, e.g., AR, Tab 107, One Largo Negotiation Letter, Nov. 3, 2010, at 2. The offerors were requested to demonstrate how any possible impacts and mitigation measures would be addressed to allow for a finding of no significant impact. Id.
Initial Evaluation of Offers
Offers were evaluated by the agency's technical evaluation teams[9] (TET), which assigned adjectival ratings under each non-price evaluation factor supported by a narrative discussion that identified the offerors' respective strengths and weaknesses. See id., Tabs 71, 72, and 73, TET Revised Evaluation Reports. The evaluation reports were provided to the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which also evaluated the offerors' revised proposals. The SSEB assigned adjectival ratings under each subfactor and for the proposals overall, but did not, at this juncture, provide an adjectival rating for the three top-level evaluation factors. See id., Tab 76, SSEB Final Evaluation Report, at 3.
The SSEB rated the proposals of Fishers Lane, One Largo, and Metroview as superior overall (the highest technical rating), while King Farm's proposal was rated highly successful overall (the next highest rating). Id. at 45. The SSEB's adjectival ratings were also supported by narrative discussions of the offerors' respective strengths and weaknesses under each of the evaluation subfactors. For example, under the location factor subfactors, the SSEB discussed the offerors' differing access to existing Metrorail stations and amenities. See id. at 45-46. In this regard, the SSEB recognized significant differences in the distance of the offered buildings from existing Metrorail stations. Thus, One Largo, which offered a building less than 525 wlf from the nearest Metrorail station, received a superior rating, while King Farm, which offered a building approximately 1.3 miles from the nearest Metrorail station, received a marginal rating. See id. at 7-11, 45-47. King Farm's marginal rating under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor resulted in that firm's proposal receiving an overall highly successful rating rather than a superior rating. Id. at 45. Similarly, under the equally weighted building characteristics factor, the SSEB noted the differing strengths and weaknesses of the offerors' proposed buildings. Id. at 45-47.
GSA also calculated a net present value per square foot for the awardee's and protesters' final revised proposals, as follows:
AR, Tabs 145, 146, 147, and 148, Present Value Analyses.
The SSEB conducted a tradeoff analysis and recommended that the lease be awarded to King Farm as reflecting the best value to the agency. Id., Tab 76, SSEB Final Evaluation Report, at 48'50. The SSEB found that the proposals of Fishers Lane, One Largo, and Metroview were essentially technically equal, and that the price of Fishers Lane was lower than the prices of One Largo and Metroview. The SSEB then compared the Fishers Lane higher-rated proposal to King Farm's lower'priced proposal. The SSEB found that the higher technical rating of the Fishers Lane proposal primarily reflected that offeror's proposal of a building that was closer to the nearest Metrorail station. The SSEB also found, however, that King Farm had mitigated that advantage by offering a free shuttle service.[10] Id. at 48. The SSEB concluded that although the Fishers Lane proposal had a higher rating, the two offerors' proposals approached "technical equality," and the perceived benefit in the Fishers Lane proposal did not merit the additional cost to the agency. Id. at 50.
Review by the Source Selection Authority
The SSEB's January 2011 evaluation report and award recommendation were provided to the agency's source selection authority (SSA). The SSA was concerned with the SSEB's rationale for its ratings of the offers and directed the SSEB to reevaluate and review its source selection recommendation. See id., Tab 78, Source Selection Decision, at 1. The SSA stated, among other things, that the SSEB's report did not indicate that the evaluation board had recognized that the location and building characteristics factors were of equal weight and that price was significantly less important than the technical factors. Id.
In February, the SSEB reviewed its evaluation ratings as directed and affirmed its subfactor ratings. AR, Tab 77, SSEB Addendum, at 2. To account for the equal weighting of the location and building characteristics factors, the SSEB decided to assign adjectival ratings at the factor level as part of its reassessment. Id. The SSEB also concluded that all five of the offers merited an overall highly successful rating, and should be viewed as technically equivalent, based on the factor-level ratings and on each offer's strengths and weaknesses. Id. at 3. For example, with respect to the King Farm proposal's overall rating, the SSEB considered its distance from Metrorail as a major weakness, but also considered the many strengths of King Farm's offer, such as the number of amenity categories, wide column spacing, lobby design, and past performance reviews suggesting the "ability to complete large projects with positive results." Id. at 4. Because the SSEB found that all offers were technically equal, the board again recommended that the lease be awarded to King Farm on the basis of its low price. Id. at 3, 7.
The SSA reviewed the SSEB's addendum evaluation report and agreed with the board's subfactor ratings and its recommendation to make award to King Farm. The SSA, however, disagreed with the SSEB's conclusion that the offers were technically equal. AR, Tab 78, SSA Decision, at 1. The SSA concluded that, although the proposals were technically very close, One Largo's offer was technically superior to the proposals of Fishers Lane, Metroview, and King Farm.[11] Id. In performing a tradeoff analysis, the SSA compared One Largo's superior offer with King Farm's low-priced, highly successful-rated offer. At the conclusion of her review, the SSA agreed with the ultimate conclusions of the SSEB, and decided that King Farm's offer represented the best value to the government. Id. at 3.
The SSA noted, for example, that even though King Farm's proposed site was the furthest from a Metrorail station--and therefore received a marginal rating under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor--King Farm's location was only three-tenths of a mile farther than the distance necessary to receive a successful rating (as defined by the SSP). The SSA also noted that King Farm's distance from the Metrorail station would be mitigated by King Farm's proposed shuttle and local bus service. Id. The SSA also found that King Farm offered a savings of over [Deleted] over the life of the lease as compared to One Largo. Id.
Review by the Head of the Contracting Activity
The SSA's selection decision was provided to GSA's commissioner for the National Capital Region Public Buildings Service, who also serves as the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for this region. The HCA reviewed the SFO, SSP, TET reports, SSEB reports, and the SSA's decision, and disagreed with the SSA's conclusion that King Farm's proposal offered the best value to the government.[12] AR, Tab 79, HCA Decision, at 1. In making her determination, the HCA stated that she relied upon the SSEB's subfactor and overall ratings, and on the narrative discussion in the board's evaluation report (before the SSA required the SSEB to review its ratings and before the SSEB provided factor-level ratings). While the HCA relied on the SSEB's earlier ratings, she did not accept the SSEB's tradeoff analysis or its recommendation for award. Id. at 5. The evaluation ratings relied upon by the HCA in her decision were as follows:[13]
King Farm
One Largo
Fishers Lane
Location ([Deleted]%)
Access to Existing Metrorail ([Deleted]%)
Highly Successful
Access to Amenities ([Deleted]%)
Highly Successful
Building Characteristics ([Deleted]%)
Number of Buildings ([Deleted]%)
Planning Efficiency and Flexibility ([Deleted]%)
Highly Successful
Quality of Building Architecture, etc. ([Deleted]%)
Past Performance & Key Personnel ([Deleted]%)
Past Performance ([Deleted]%)
Key Personnel ([Deleted]%)
Highly Successful
Highly Successful
AR, Tab 76, SSEB Final Evaluation Report, at 52.
The HCA ranked the offers, based on the percentage of superior ratings received, in the following order: One Largo, Metroview, Fishers Lane, and King Farm. For example, the HCA concluded that One Largo's offer was the highest'rated because it received a superior rating for 85 percent of the stated subfactors, including the three most important subfactors--access to existing Metrorail ([Deleted]%), number of buildings ([Deleted]%), and planning efficiency and flexibility ([Deleted]%). Id., Tab 79, HCA Decision, at 7.
The HCA stated that the Fishers Lane offer presented the best value to the government and selected Fishers Lane for award. Id. at 7. With regard to One Largo's higher-rated offer, the HCA acknowledged One Largo's technical superiority''based on the adjectival ratings--but stated that One Largo offered no technical advantage to justify its higher per square foot price [Deleted]. The HCA's tradeoff between the proposals of One Largo and Fishers Lane did not, however, identify One Largo's technical advantages or explain why these advantages did not justify the higher price. Id. Similarly, the HCA found that Metroview's offer was not the best value to the government, based on Metroview's lower rating and higher price than One Largo, but without any further explanation of the underlying merits of the proposals. Id.
The HCA also compared the Fishers Lane offer with King Farm's lower-priced offer, observing that the King Farm and Fishers Lane offers received the "same or similar" adjectival scores for all technical subfactors except for access to an existing Metrorail station.[14] Id. at 6. As noted above, the Fishers Lane offer was rated highly successful under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor, and King Farm's offer was rated marginal. The HCA stated that this was the distinguishing difference between the offers, and selected the Fishers Lane higher-priced offer as the best value to the government. Id. GSA announced its selection decision on March 20, 2011, and these protests followed. GSA has stayed award of the lease pending our resolution of these protests.
The protesters raise numerous objections to the evaluation of offers and the HCA's selection decision. As explained below, we sustain the protesters' challenges to GSA's evaluation of offers under the access to amenities subfactor, and to the agency's source selection decision. We deny the remainder of the specific challenges to GSA's proposal evaluation and One Largo's challenge to the agency's environmental assessment. In resolving the protests, we have considered all of the parties' arguments, but address only the more significant protest grounds.[15]
Access to Amenities Subfactor
King Farm argues that GSA's evaluation of proposals under the access to amenities subfactor was not in accordance with the SFO. King Farm Supp. Protest (B'404896.5) at 28-30. Specifically, King Farm contends that offerors were advised that the agency would consider the quantity, variety, and proximity of amenities offered. Instead of considering the quantity and variety of amenities, King Farm argues that the agency only considered the number of amenity categories offered. Id.
GSA acknowledges that the SFO provided for the evaluation of the variety, quantity, and proximity of amenities but argues that this was accomplished by assessing the number of amenity categories offered by each offeror. See Supp. AR at 20. Thus, for example, GSA contends that its assignment of a highly successful rating to King Farm's offer under the access to amenities subfactor was reasonable, where King Farm offered 13 amenities from only 8 amenity categories within 1,500 wlf of its building. In comparison, the Fishers Lane offer was rated superior under this subfactor for its offer of 18 amenities in 9 amenity categories. Id. at 21. GSA also argues that even if their ratings under the access to amenities subfactor were improved, King Farm and Metroview were not prejudiced by GSA's actions because this subfactor represented only [Deleted] percent of the total evaluation, and thus would not have altered the overall technical ratings or the results of the tradeoff analysis. Id. at 19.
We find that GSA's approach to evaluating this SFO provision was inconsistent with the terms of the provision.[16] The SFO provided:
Offers will be evaluated for both the quantity and variety of the following amenities: fitness facilities, postal facilities . . . restaurants, day care center, fast food establishments, dry cleaners, [banks/ATMs], convenience shops, card/gift shops, hair salons, automotive service stations, and drug stores. . . . The final evaluation will consider all of the available amenities and the offers will be scored based on the quantity, variety, hours and proximity of such amenities. . . . The best rating will be given to offers that provide the greatest variety and quantity of amenities with good hours of operation existing at the time of occupancy within the building or within 1,500 walkable linear feet of the building.
SFO amend. 8, at 1-2 (emphasis added). The plain language of the SFO requires GSA to evaluate both the overall number of amenities offered as well as the number of amenity categories (i.e., the variety). In this regard, the SFO stressed the importance of having adequate eating facilities nearby, see id. at 1, but GSA's simple counting of categories, such as hair salons or automotive service stations, ignores the type of amenity being offered. For example, King Farm and Fishers Lane offered different quantities of amenities within a number of different categories. GSA's counting of amenity categories disregarded King Farm's identification of three restaurants and three fast food establishments within 1,500 wlf of its building, as compared to identification by Fishers Lane of only one restaurant and four fast food establishments within 1,500 wlf. Similarly, GSA's evaluation does not account for the fact that 7 of 18 amenities offered by Fishers Lane were automotive service stations.
In short, we find that GSA's assignment of adjectival ratings based only upon how many amenity categories were offered was not reasonable.[17] We also disagree that the protesters were not prejudiced by the agency's evaluation under this subfactor. GSA's arguments ignore the requirement, noted below, that agencies must look beyond the adjectival ratings assigned to competing proposals to consider actual differences in the technical quality. Accordingly, we sustain King Farm's protest of the agency's evaluation of proposals under the access to amenities subfactor.[18]
Source Selection Decision
As set out below, all three of the protesters here raise challenges to the HCA's selection decision. King Farm argues that the HCA failed to perform the required tradeoff analysis, and failed to articulate any rationale for paying the [Deleted] price premium [Deleted] for the Fishers Lane proposal. King Farm Supp. Protest (B'404896.5) at 19. King Farm argues that such a rationale is necessary, particularly where the evaluation record provided to the HCA included the SSA's tradeoff analysis, which found that the cost savings and shuttle service offered by King Farm's proposal mitigated King Farm's lower rating in the access to existing Metrorail subfactor. Id. at 21-22.
One Largo, the highest-rated offeror, argues that the HCA's recitation of offerors' scores and prices--without additional explanation weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal--was insufficient to support the HCA's determination that the Fishers Lane proposal represented the best value to the government. One Largo Supp. Protest (B-404896.6) at 2-3. In this regard, One Largo complains that the HCA failed to credit One Largo for its evaluated technical superiority by looking behind its higher ratings to discern the substantive differences in the proposals. Id. at 5. For example, One Largo contends that, while its proposal received a superior rating under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor--which represented [Deleted] percent of the total rating--compared to the highly successful rating of the Fishers Lane proposal, the HCA failed to evaluate the true difference between the proposals under that subfactor, that is, the actual difference in distances from a Metrorail station. One Largo's location was assessed as less than 525 wlf from the nearest Metrorail station, whereas the Fishers Lane location was assessed as roughly 2,407 wlf from the nearest Metrorail station--more than four times farther.
Finally, Metroview argues that the HCA failed to meaningfully consider whether Metroview's proposal, which received a higher percentage of superior ratings than the Fishers Lane proposal, merited the cost premium, based each proposal's strengths and weaknesses. Metroview Supp. Protest (B-404896.7) at 3. Metroview notes, for example, that the HCA did not consider the higher rating its proposal received compared to the Fishers Lane proposal under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor, based on the location of Metroview's offered building, which was approximately 1,280 wlf from the nearest Metrorail station, as compared to the Fishers Lane building located approximately 2,407 wlf, or almost double the distance. Id.
Metroview also challenges the HCA's failure to consider in her selection decision the merits of Metroview's proposal with regard to other proposals. Id. at 4. Metroview argues that, although Metroview's proposal received only [Deleted] percent fewer superior ratings than One Largo's proposal, the HCA did not substantively discuss the technical strengths and weaknesses of the two proposals to determine whether they were technically equal or whether one was technically superior, but instead mechanically applied the adjectival ratings to determine technical superiority. Id. Moreover, Metroview asserts that the evaluation record does not provide clear support for any one proposal. In this regard, Metroview notes that the SSEB concluded in its final evaluation report that all proposals were technically equal and recommended King Farm based on its lower price; the SSA disagreed with the SSEB's determination of technical equality and selected King Farm's proposal after a tradeoff analysis; and the HCA disagreed with the conclusions of both the SSEB and the SSA to select the Fishers Lane proposal.[19] Id.
In summary, the crux of the protesters' challenges to the HCA's selection decision is that the HCA failed to consider the evaluated differences between the firms' proposals in her tradeoff analysis.
In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection decision, we examine the supporting record to determine whether the decision was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., B-289942, B-289942.2, May 24, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 88 at 6. Although source selection officials may reasonably disagree with the ratings and recommendations of evaluators, they are nonetheless bound by the fundamental requirement that their independent judgments be reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation scheme, and adequately documented. Earl Indust., LLC, B'309996, B-309996.4, Nov. 5, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 203 at 7. In this regard, ratings, whether numerical, color, or adjectival, are merely guides for intelligent decisionmaking. Citywide Managing Servs. Of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B'281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 11. An agency's source selection decision cannot be based on a mechanical comparison of the offerors' technical scores or ratings per se, but must rest upon a qualitative assessment of the underlying technical differences among competing offers. See The MIL Corp., B'294836, Dec. 30, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 29 at 8; Opti-Lite Optical, B-281693, Mar. 22, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 61 at 5.
GSA argues that the HCA reasonably exercised her discretion in determining that the Fishers Lane proposal represented the best value to the government. Supp. AR at 1'2. GSA further argues that the HCA's review of the SSEB report and the SSA decision, which each contained a detailed discussion of the merits of each proposal, provided sufficient basis for the HCA's selection decision. Id. at 4. In particular, GSA notes that the HCA adopted the overall technical ratings assigned by the SSEB in its January 2011 report. Id. GSA also contends that our prior decisions do not require agency selection officials to discuss every detail regarding the relative merit of the proposals in the selection decision document. Id. at 6.
We recognize that while agency selection officials may rely on reports and analyses prepared by others, the ultimate selection decision reflects the selection official's independent judgment. See, e.g., Puglia Eng'g of California, Inc., B-297413 et al., Jan. 20, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 33 (SSA concurred with recommendation in detailed price negotiation memorandum without preparing separate source selection decision). However, the independence granted selection officials does not equate to a grant of authority to ignore, without explanation, those who advise them on selection decisions. University Research Co., LLC, B-294358, et al., Oct. 28, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 217 at 8.
Here, unlike in Puglia, the HCA did not concur with the recommendations of the lower-level evaluators. Although the HCA adopted the subfactor-level adjectival ratings assigned by the SSEB, she did not adopt either the SSEB's or the SSA's analyses concerning the relative merits of the proposals or selection recommendations. Rather, without explaining the basis for her disagreement with the conclusions of the lower-level evaluators, the HCA proceeded to make conclusory pronouncements concerning which proposal offered the best value to the government. Moreover, contrary to the agency's contentions concerning the clarity of support for the HCA's selection decision, the record shows considerable disagreement between the SSEB and the SSA concerning the relative merits of the proposals.
We find from our review of the record no evidence of any meaningful consideration by the HCA of the evaluated differences in the firms' offers. Rather, the HCA's tradeoff assessment was based upon a mechanical comparison of the percentage of superior and highly successful ratings assigned to each offer. Where, as here, a solicitation provides for award on a best value basis, the decision as to the relative technical merit of the offers must be based upon a comparative consideration of the technical differences of the proposals. See Systems Research & Applications, Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-299818 et al., Sept. 6, 2007, 2008 CPD para. 28 at 24.
As noted above, the SSEB documented a number of differences between the offerors' proposals, which would appear to provide discriminators for a determination of the relative technical merit of the offers. For example, under the most important subfactor, access to existing Metrorail, the offerors' proposed buildings were at differing distances from a Metrorail station. Also, King Farm, which offered a building at the greatest distance from a Metrorail station, proposed a shuttle service plan to mitigate that weakness. See AR, Tab 76, SSEB Final Report, at 48. Similarly, under the planning efficiency and flexibility subfactor, the SSEB noted a number of differing strengths and weaknesses in the offerors' proposed building layouts. See id. at 21-28.
In the absence of a documented, meaningful consideration of the technical differences between the offerors' proposals, the HCA could not perform a reasonable tradeoff analysis. That is, the HCA had no basis to determine that the Fishers Lane higher-priced proposal outweighed the cost savings offered by the King Farm lower'rated, but lower-priced offer. Similarly, the HCA had no basis to conclude that the Fishers Lane proposal was more advantageous than the proposals of One Largo and Metroview. Accordingly, we sustain the protesters' challenge to GSA's selection of the Fishers Lane offer as the best value to the government.[20]
Access to Existing Metrorail Subfactor
King Farm and Metroview also challenge the highly successful rating given the Fishers Lane offer under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor, noting that the evaluation record contains various calculations of the distance of the Fishers Lane building to the nearest Metrorail station. King Farm Supp. Protest (B'404896.5) at 23'28; Metroview Supp. Protest (B-404896.7) at 5-6. That is, the protesters state that GSA initially determined that the Fishers Lane building was 2,600 wlf from the nearest station, and assigned the awardee's initial proposal a successful rating under this subfactor. The protesters complain, however, that the agency later calculated the distance to be 2,407 wlf, and assigned the Fishers Lane final revised proposal a highly successful rating under this subfactor. Id.
We find no merit to this argument. The agency's differing calculations of the distance of the Fishers Lane building from the nearest Metrorail station are explained in the contemporaneous record. The Fishers Lane initial offer provided two paths to the Metrorail station: the "existing path" along Parklawn Drive which Fishers Lane estimated was 2,440 wlf, and a "planned path," which Fishers Lane estimated was 2,300 wlf and which originated at the building's main entrance on Fishers Lane (the road) and continued on current sidewalks as well as future sidewalks to be constructed for other development projects near the Metrorail station.[21] See AR, Tab 38, Fishers Lane Offer, Mar. 26, 2010, Factor A - Access to Existing Metrorail.
In reviewing initial offers, GSA's broker measured the "planned path" distance from the Fishers Lane building's main entrance to the Metrorail entrance as being 2,600 wlf,[22] and the TET assigned Fishers Lane a rating of successful for the subfactor. See id., Tab 67, Initial Offer - Location TET Report, at 8. GSA requested clarification from Fishers Lane as to how it measured the "planned path" considering existing conditions. Id., Tab 99, GSA Clarification Letter to Fishers Lane, July 21, 2010, at 1. Fishers Lane provided an "engineered drawing" to clarify the path, noting that the sidewalks were now completed. See id., Tab 104, Fishers Lane Response to Clarification Letter, July 30, 2010, at 3. GSA's broker measured the distance as 2,407 wlf "using new sidewalk through pking [sic] lot," id., Tab 241, Fishers Lane Location Analysis, at 13, and the SSEB assigned Fishers Lane a rating of highly successful for the subfactor. Id., Tab 74, SSEB Report, Sept. 13, 2010, at 12. The protesters have not shown that the agency's distance calculation based upon this drawing was unreasonable.
All three of the protesters also complain that Fishers Lane calculated its price per square foot based upon the taxes it currently pays, and argue that these taxes do not reflect the significant renovations Fishers Lane proposed for its building. King Farm Supp. Protest (B-404896.5) at 31-35; One Largo Supp. Protest (B-404896.7), Apr. 28, 2011 e'mail, at 1; Metroview Supp. Protest (B-404896.7) at 8. The protesters further contend that Fishers Lane was required to include in its lease price an estimate of the amount of taxes that would ultimately be assessed once Fishers Lane completed its renovation of the building.[23] Specifically, the protesters contend that GSA Forms 1217, Lessor's Annual Cost Statement, and 1364, Proposal to Lease Space, (which the SFO required offerors to complete) provide that offerors estimate the amount of taxes that would be levied after construction or renovation. Id. In this regard, the protesters focus on the GSA Form 1217 section heading, "Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership Exclusive of Capital Charges," [emphasis added] under which line 28 requires offerors to input the amount of real estate taxes.[24] Id. The protesters contend that, by excluding estimated taxes on the building as renovated, Fishers Lane submitted an artificially low price.
We agree with GSA that the forms do not specifically instruct offerors to estimate the amount of real estate taxes, although the offerors reasonably concluded that, where new construction will be required, the agency would expect to have an estimate of post-construction taxes included in rental calculations. The instructions for GSA Form 1217 merely require offerors to "include all applicable real estate taxes imposed upon the property." Likewise, GSA Form 1364 requires offerors to include in the cost of shell rent "current real estate taxes." Moreover, to the extent that Fishers Lane used a lower amount for taxes in calculating its offered rent, we note that the lease at issue here will be fixed-price; as a result, a firm may, in its business judgment, submit a below-cost offer, or an offer that may be an attempted buy-in. See Property Analysts, Inc., B-277266, Sept. 12, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 77 at 6.
King Farm also argues that, because the SFO provides for lease adjustments for increased taxes, Fishers Lane will be entitled to an increase in its price after its building is renovated. King Farm Supp. Comments at 2-3, 10-11. The protester misreads the SFO, however. The SFO provides that the real estate tax base will be established based on a full assessment for the first full tax year following the commencement of the lease. SFO at 26. The full assessment takes into account all contemplated improvements to the property. Id. at 26-27; see also Kimbrell v. Fischer, 15 F.3d 175 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("full assessment" means an assessment on the improved property). The SFO provision King Farm cites provides that the government shall pay its share of any increases in real estate taxes above the real estate tax base. Therefore, Fishers Lane will be responsible for all of the real estate tax increase resulting from the renovation; according to the SFO, the government would only be responsible for its share of any tax increases above the tax base set after renovation.
Environmental Assessment
One Largo also challenges GSA's environmental assessment, complaining that GSA neglected to include two additional intersections as part of its environmental assessment of the Fishers Lane site. One Largo claims that 80 percent of the traffic in the vicinity travels through the two intersections. One Largo Comments at 13.
GSA responds that it reasonably relied on the analysis performed by its independent consultant, who consulted with officials in Montgomery and Prince George's counties.[25] AR at 37. The agency notes that the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development acknowledged that any increase in traffic at the Fishers Lane location would be negligible, because there would be only a net increase of 200 employees compared to the number of HHS employees currently at the awardee's building. See AR, Tab 267, Montgomery County Dept. of Econ. Dev. Comments on Final Env. Assessment.
One Largo disagrees with GSA's analysis that the Fishers Lane proposed site would not require an environmental impact statement, but does not show that the agency's judgment was unreasonable in this regard.[26]
We recommend that GSA reevaluate offers under the access to amenities subfactor in accordance with the terms of the SFO and perform and document a new selection decision consistent with our decision. If the Fishers Lane proposal is not found to reflect the best value to the government, the agency should award the lease to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the government. We also recommend that the protesters be reimbursed their reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1). The protesters' certified claims for such costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, must be submitted directly to the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).
The protests are sustained.[27]
Lynn H. Gibson
General Counsel
[1] The majority of HSS employees in these locations are housed in the building offered by the awardee. Agency Report (AR), Tab 18, Program of Requirements (POR), at 1.1.
[2] GSA prepared a source selection plan (SSP) for the procurement, which provided for the assignment of the following adjectival ratings: superior, highly successful, successful, marginal, and poor. See AR, Tab 5, Revised SSP, at 12'18. For example, under the access to existing Metrorail subfactor, the SSP provided for a superior rating where the building distance from the Metrorail station was within 1,500 wlf; a highly successful rating where the distance was more than 1,500 but less than 2,500 wlf; a successful rating where the distance was more than 2,500 wlf but less than 1 mile; a marginal rating where the distance was more than 1 mile but less than 2 miles; and a poor rating where the distance was more than 2 miles but less than 3 miles. Id. at 15.
[3] The SFO incorporated by reference the agency's POR, SFO at 6, which required offerors to provide space within the building for a number of facilities, including a post office, health unit, child care center, food service/cafeteria, fitness center, and credit union. See AR, Tab 18, POR, at 1.4.
[4] The SSP provided for the assignment of adjectival ratings under the access to amenities subfactor based upon the number of amenities being offered in categories identified in the SFO within a certain distance from the proposed building. For example, a superior rating reflected having at least [Deleted]. A highly successful rating reflected having at least [Deleted]. A successful rating reflected having at least [Deleted]. A marginal rating reflected having at least [Deleted]. AR, Tab 5, Revised SSP, at 16.
[5] A finding of no significant impact means that a building site has no significant impact on the human environment, which reflects the relationship of humans with the natural and physical environment. See 40 C.F.R. sections 1508.13, 1508.14 (2010).
[6] When a project is likely to significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the agency must provide a detailed written statement on the environmental impact of the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project. See 42 U.S.C. sect. 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. sect. 1508.11.
[7] In response to the offerors' questions, GSA stated that the ceiling height was reduced to reflect HHS's requirements. See SFO amend. 10, questions and answers, at 3. The CO also states, however, that the required ceiling height was reduced to maximize competition. CO's Statement at 7.
[8] GSA prepared a draft environmental assessment in September 2010 that examined the possible impact of the lease consolidation for each of the offerors' proposed sites, and invited public comment. See AR, Tab 173, Draft Environmental Assessment; CO's Statement at 13. One Largo raised objections to the draft environmental assessment, which it repeats in its protest here. See AR, Tab 184, One Largo Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment. In March 2011, GSA completed the final environmental assessment, which concluded that each offered site would result in a finding of no significant impact. CO's Statement at 14.
[9] GSA assigned a separate technical evaluation team for each non-price evaluation factor.
[10] The SSEB also noted the [Deleted] price difference between King Farm's proposal and the Fishers Lane proposal over the term of the lease. Id. at 50.
[11] The SSA also found that the fifth offeror's proposal, which was higher priced than One Largo's, was technically superior to the proposals of Fishers Lane, Metroview, and King Farm. The fifth offeror did not protest the award to Fishers Lane, and discussion of its proposal is not relevant to this decision.
[12] The authority of agency officials to make source selections and awards under competitive proposal procedures flows from the procurement authority granted to the head of the agency. See Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 1.601; Advanced Sci., Inc., B-259569.3, July 3, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 52 at 18. Here, the procurement authority of GSA's Administrator to make selection decisions was delegated through the HCA to the SSA. Inherent in the authority to appoint source selection officials is the authority to review selection decisions, reverse, vacate, and make new selection decisions. Advanced Sci., Inc., supra, at 19.
[13] The percentage weighting assigned by the SSP to the factors and subfactors was not disclosed in the SFO. See AR, Tab 5, Revised SSP, at 14.
[14] In reaching a tradeoff decision, the HCA acknowledged that, for this procurement, price is significantly less important than the combined weight of the technical factors, but that the importance of price increases as offers approach technical equality. AR, Tab 79, HCA Selection Decision, at 5.
[15] In this regard, One Largo argues that GSA's actions were biased in favor of Fishers Lane; we find no basis in the record to support that argument. Moreover, One Largo's challenge to the solicitation amendment lowering the acceptable ceiling height concerns an alleged apparent solicitation impropriety which was required to be filed, but was not, before the next closing date for revised proposals. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a) (2010).
[16] Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a particular solicitation provision, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all its provisions; to be reasonable, an interpretation of a solicitation must be consistent with such a reading. The Boeing Co., B-311344 et al., June 8, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 114 at 35.
[17] We note that the SFO also informed offerors that the hours of operation of the amenities would be considered in the evaluation of proposals under the access to amenities subfactor. SFO amend. 8, at 1-2. However, the record does not indicate that GSA considered the hours of operation in its evaluation.
[18] Metroview raised a number of other challenges to the agency's evaluation of its proposal under this subfactor, none of which we find have merit. For example, Metroview complains that GSA did not consider five amenities that Metroview offered because these amenities were required to be within the building under the POR. Metroview Comments at 8. Metroview's interpretation that it should receive credit under the access to amenities subfactor for amenities required by the SFO to be provided in the building is illogical. The purpose of the subfactor is to encourage offerors to identify as many amenities within walking distance as possible. Metroview's argument that the evaluation under this subfactor should also have counted amenities that were required to be sited within the building by the POR does not achieve those ends. Moreover, Metroview does not explain how crediting it for amenities that all of the offerors were required to provide within the building would change its competitive standing vis- -vis the other offerors.
Metroview also argues that GSA unreasonably did not consider additional on-site (not required) amenities that it offered, noting that the SFO expressly permitted offerors to offer amenities on-site for consideration under the access to amenities subfactor. GSA agrees that the SFO provided that the agency would consider such additional on-site amenities under the subfactor, but states that, despite being requested to provide additional support for its claims about these amenities, Metroview did not provide the requested documentation. Our review of the record shows that Metroview did not provide support for its offer of these amenities.
Metroview also complains that GSA improperly disregarded five additional amenities located within 987 wlf of the building. Metroview Supp. Protest (B'404896.7) at 7. The record supports GSA's finding that the amenities that Metroview states would be located within 987 wlf of the building were also not identified by supporting documentation.
[19] Metroview also argues that the SSEB and the SSA also did not provide adequate justification for their cost/technical tradeoff decisions. Id. However, we need not resolve this argument.
[20] King Farm also objects that the HCA unreasonably assessed the offers at the subfactor level without "roll[ing] up" the subfactor ratings into factor-level ratings. King Farm Supp. Protest (B-404896.5) at 14-18. We agree with GSA that the SFO did not require GSA to roll up the subfactor ratings into factor ratings.
[21] Fishers Lane stated that the building entrance on Fishers Lane would serve as the main entrance after the renovation. Id.
[22] The broker's handwritten notes indicated that the 2,600 wlf measurement was based on a path along a fence. AR, Tab 241, Fishers Lane Location Analysis, at 13.
[23] As noted above, Fishers Lane was the only offeror to propose renovating an existing building rather than constructing a new building.
[24] GSA Form 1364 requires offerors to include in their shell rent "current real estate taxes" and directs offerors to line 28 on GSA Form 1217.
[25] GSA also argues that our Bid Protest Process does not address compliance with the procedural requirements of environmental statutes and regulations such as NEPA. AR at 30. GSA is correct that we generally do not review compliance with NEPA. Here, however, the SFO provided that offerors must provide a basis for GSA to conclude that the offered sites would not require an environmental impact statement to be technically acceptable. SFO at 25.
[26] Although One Largo raised its objections to the omission of the two intersections in its comments on the draft environmental assessment, One Largo also stated "that the Draft [environmental assessment] provides sufficient basis for GSA to issue a [finding of no significant impact letter] under NEPA and its implementing regulations . . . ." AR, Tab 184, One Largo Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment, at 1. It was only after GSA's selection of the Fishers Lane proposal for award that One Largo challenged GSA's judgment that the Fishers Lane site merited a finding of no significant impact.
[27] We have considered all of the protesters' remaining arguments, and conclude that they have no merit.
Nov 25, 2020
Battelle Memorial Institute
We deny the protest.
Exceed, LLC
We deny the protest.
Nov 24, 2020
Posterity Arora JV, LLC
We deny the protest.
Technology, Automation & Management, Inc.
We deny the protest.
Nov 20, 2020
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless
We deny the protest.
RIVA Solutions, Inc.
We deny the protest.
DynCorp International, LLC
We deny the protest.
Nov 19, 2020
Qbase, LLC; Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC; and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
We sustain the protest.
Looking for more? Browse all our products here