This Office property located in Texas was leased about 1 year ago. The brokers of the deal were Greg Burns, Jeff Eiting, Johnny Johnson, and Chris TaylorThe LoopNet service and information provided therein, while believed to be accurate, are provided “as is”. LoopNet disclaims any and all representations, warranties, or guarantees of any kind.We apologize, but the feature you are trying to access is currently unavailable. We are aware of this issue and our team is working hard to resolve the matter.The Las Colinas Office Property at 901 W Walnut Hill Ln, Irving, TX 75038 is currently available. Contact Cushman & Wakefield US, Inc. for more information.
LoopNet has taken a strong stance against the practice of sending unsolicited commercial emails, also known as “spam.” Please send these emails only to people you know who would be interested in this property. If someone asks you not to send these emails to them, please comply.The username or password you entered is incorrect. Please try again. Remember passwords are case sensitive. If you forgot your password, click to reset it.
GSA responds that the solicitation, as amended, required that employee and visitor entrances be connected to public sidewalks by continuous, accessible sidewalks, and that the building Offeror B proposed meets this requirement. Supp. MOL at 3; Supp. COS at 1-2. GSA asserts, however, that the solicitation did not require that the building be connected to food and transit services by continuous public sidewalks. Id. Although the RLP states that the entrance of the building must be connected to public sidewalks by continuous sidewalks, we agree that there is nothing in the amended solicitation which requires amenities to be connected to the building by continuous public sidewalks.GSA received lease proposals from CentrePort, Offeror B, and Walnut Hill. AR, Exh. 15, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 16. The agency found that all three proposals met the requirements of the solicitation. Id. at 8, 11, 15. Offeror B offered to lease its property at $18.22 per square foot, and Walnut Hill at $18.60 per square foot. Id. at 16. The agency awarded the lease to CentrePort which submitted the lowest-priced proposal at $17.43 per square foot. Id. at 16-17. This protest followed. 901 W Walnut Hill Lane Holdings Limited Partnership (Walnut Hill), of Irving, Texas, protests the award of a lease to CentrePort Properties, LLC (CentrePort), of Fort Worth, Texas, by the General Services Administration (GSA), under request for lease proposals (RLP) No. 6TX0568, for the lease of office space. The protester asserts that the building proposed by CentrePort does not meet all of the solicitation requirements and thus is ineligible for award. Walnut Hill also protests any award to Offeror B, asserting that the building proposed by Offeror B also fails to meet all solicitation requirements. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, only an interested party may maintain a protest, that is, an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interests would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(a)(1). A protester is not an interested party to challenge an agency’s evaluation where, even if the challenge has merit, another offeror would be in line for award if the protest was sustained. CACI, Inc.-Federal; Gen. Dynamics One Source, LLC, B‑413860.4, et al., Jan. 5, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 17 at 21, 22. Here, since Offeror B’s proposal is acceptable, Offeror B would be in line for award if Walnut’s Hill’s challenge to the evaluation of CentrePort’s proposal is sustained. Accordingly, we dismiss Walnut Hill’s protest against the award to CentrePort because Walnut Hill is not an interested party to challenge that award.In Walnut Hill’s view, the purpose of the solicitation requirement for access by continuous public sidewalks is so that the “functional entrance” of the building is “safely accessible” and “walkable” to “food services.” Comments at 6. Walnut Hill argues that the building proposed by Offeror B does not meet the requirement because it has a public sidewalk on the street immediately in front of the building which only extends a short distance in each direction, and does not connect to food or transit services. Id. at 7. GSA further notes that under the protester’s interpretation of the solicitation the protester’s proposal would be unacceptable because the employee and visitor entrances to the building that the protester proposed are not connected to a public sidewalk. The protester does not disagree that the entrance is not connected to a public sidewalk, but argues that it can easily remedy this.As discussed in detail below, we agree that the building proposed by Offeror B meets the solicitation requirement for accessibility to food and transit services, and is therefore acceptable. We further agree that Walnut Hill is not an interested party to protest the award to CentrePort.