Skip to content

901 West Walnut Hill Lane

The information that this private business collects and maintains as a result of your visit to its Web site, and the manner in which it does so, may differ from the information that MUFG Americas collects and maintains. (Refer to the Privacy page for privacy protections MUFG Americas provides to its Web site visitors). If you provide the business with information, its use of that information will be subject to that business’s privacy policy. We recommend you review their information collection policy, or terms and conditions to fully understand what that business collects. We are not responsible for the information collection practices of the other Web sites that you visit and urge you to review their privacy policies before you provide them with any personal information.By clicking on the link below, you will leave the MUFG Americas website and enter a privately owned website created, operated, and maintained by another unaffiliated business. By linking to the website of this private business, MUFG Americas is not endorsing its products, services, or privacy or security policies. If you accept third-party goods or services advertised at our website, the third party may be able to identify that you have a relationship with us (for example, if the offer was made only through our site).

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.

New to LoopNet? No problem. We’ll automatically create a free account for you. By clicking the button, you agree to LoopNet’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
On this project at 901 W Walnut Hill Ln, Irving, TX 75038 there have been 2 permits filed, 4 preliminary notices exchanged, 0 lien waivers exchanged between companies and 0 liens filed. Below you can find when the various project and payment events occurred over the last several years of data where available. You can also report a payment event if you’re on this project.In this section, you can find all 29 known companies who have worked on projects at this address at each level. You’ll be able to browse companies, find the information you need to get paid, or search for your next project partner.Walnut Hill protests that the property proposed by CentrePort does not meet the solicitation requirements for contiguous space and that the functional entrance of the building be connected to public sidewalks by continuous accessible sidewalks. Protest at 5, 8. Walnut Hill also asserts that the functional entrance of the building offered by Offeror B is not connected to food or transit services by continuous public sidewalks. Comments & Supp. Protest at 6. Walnut Hill concludes that neither offeror is eligible for award and that it is the only offeror that submitted an acceptable proposal.

[1] ABOA SF refers to the area available for use by a tenant for personnel, furnishings, and equipment. See The Metropolitan Square Assocs., LLC, B-409904, Sept. 10, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 272 at 2 n.2.
GSA responds that the proposals of both CentrePort and Offeror B met all of the requirements of the RLP. Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3; Supp. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. GSA further asserts that since Offeror B submitted the second lowest-priced lease proposal, Offeror B, not Walnut Hill, would be in line for award if Walnut Hill’s challenge to the acceptability of CentrePort’s lease proposal is sustained. MOL at 3. GSA thus argues that Walnut Hill is not an interested party to maintain a protest against the award to CentrePort.

3. Transit Accessibility: A subway, light rail, or bus rapid transit stop shall be located within the immediate vicinity of the Building, but generally not exceeding a safely accessible, walkable three mile radius distance from the principal functional entrance. . . .
Protest that building proposed for lease failed to meet solicitation requirement that property be accessible to food and transit service by continuous public sidewalk is denied where solicitation did not provide for such a requirement.

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.

The RLP, issued on August 1, 2017, provided for the award of a 15-year lease of office space in Fort Worth, Texas, for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Disaster Assistance. GSA was seeking to lease approximately 141,454 of American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association Office Area square feet (ABOA SF)[1] of contiguous space. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RLP § 1.02(A). The RLP informed offerors that award would be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable lease proposal. RLP § 4.03(A). The RLP included a statement of requirements that the offered property must meet. As relevant here, space was required to be contiguous, RLP § 1.02(A). In addition, employee and visitor entrances were to be connected to public sidewalks by continuous, accessible sidewalks, and the primary functional entrance of the building was required to be within a safely accessible, walkable three mile radius distance of food and transportation services. AR, Exh. 4, RLP amend. 1 § 105(B).
[3] 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.