HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaehw0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: The Law Offices of George E. Hill
File: B-272168
Date: September 4, 1996
James P. Ray, Esq., Robinson & Cole, for the protester.
Hughes Griffis, Esq., Waller, Smith & Palmer, an intervenor.
Richard E. Weston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency.
Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Contracting agency properly awarded real estate property closing services contract
to law firm offeror where offeror did not intentionally misrepresent or omit
information about its prior representation of major real estate lenders in its
proposal, the solicitation did not require the listing of these clients, and where the
record shows that the offeror's listing of these alleged client conflicts would not
have altered the agency's award decision.
DECISION
The Law Offices of George E. Hill protests the award of a contract to Waller,
Smith & Palmer, a law firm, under request for proposals (RFP)
No. H01R96000100000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as a small business set-aside to provide real estate property
closing services in connection with the sale of HUD-acquired defaulted family
properties in Connecticut. Hill alleges that Waller has had lawyer-client
relationships with several major Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lenders in
Connecticut that Waller did not disclose in its proposal and that present a
substantial organizational conflict [which prevents the firm from rendering objective
advice to HUD] and that should lead to the firm's disqualification.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued February 20, 1996, contemplated multiple awards of indefinite
quantity contracts for a base period and 2 option years with services secured by
21794](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaehw0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)