Robert Stanton, Director
National Park Service
United States Dept of Interior
P O Box 37127
Washington, D C 20013

RE: Gettysburg National Military Park
Supplement Protest by The Monahan Group

Dear Mr. Stanton:

On November 17, 1997 , The Monahan Group("Monahan") filed a protest with your office against the National Park Service("NPS") selection of a proposal by Kinsley Equities, Inc.("Kinsley") to construct a Visitors Center and Museum at the Gettysburg National Military Park. As discussed in that protest letter, the NPS failed to conduct the selection process in accordance with the selection process set out in the NPS's request for Proposals dated December 11, 1996 (the "RFP")

Subsequent to the filing of the agency-level protest, the NPS provided Monahan with the debriefing. (1)During its debriefing, Monahan learned of facts that demonstrate NPS failed to follow the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and failed to act rationally in selecting the Kinsley proposal over the proposal offered by Monahan. This letter supplements the November 17, 1997 protest filed by Monahan. The issues raised in our previous protest and this letter together now constitute the Monahan protest.

Discussion

1. Financing

In the debriefing the NPS informed Monahan that one of the primary reasons the NPS had not selected its proposal is that Monahan had proposed to raise money to finance the cost of the Visitors Center/Museum facility solely through fundraising/charitable donations. Monahan had in fact, proposed raising funds through charitable donations and provided extensive information regarding how such fundraising would be accomplished. Monahan's goal in financing the project through fundraising was to provide the NPS with a debt free Visitors Center/Museum, which would provide the NPS with the flexibility in its operation of the facility.

Although the NPS held discussions with Monahan on September 10, 1997, NPS failed to advise Monahan that it's reliance on fundraising was viewed as a deficiency in its proposal, and, accordingly, the NPS did not provide Monahan with an opportunity to satisfy the concerns of the NPS. Instead, NPS merely asked questions regarding Monahan's financing plans.

However, during the debriefing NPS indicated that Monahan's proposal was deficient in that its reliance upon fundraising was "overly ambitious." NPS explained that if found the proposal overly ambitious because it did not believe Monahan could raise the needed funds through the solicitation of charitable donations. NPS did not cite flaws in the descriptions of how funds would be raised as set forth in the Monahan proposal. Rather the Selection Committee's decision that fundraising would be insufficient to complete the project was based upon the nebulous experience of certain of its members in attempting to raise funds for other NPS projects. NPS provides no rational basis for why such prior experience of certain members of the evaluation committee are analogous to the fundrasing efforts described in the Monahan proposal and its decision is arbitrary and capricious. In fact, the Gettysburg National Military Park, the project proposed by Monahan , and the fundraising plan in Monahan's proposal are unique and cannot be rationally compared with the NPS's previous efforts.

The NPS's conclusion regarding fundraising is particularly irrational in light of the fact that Kinsley proposed to raise approximately 75 percent of the funds needed for completion of the $40 million project through charitable contributions. The Kinsley proposal, therefore, requires the same successful fundraising effort as had been proposed by Monahan. However, unlike the debt- free project which NPS would have received from Monahan, the Kinsley proposal results in a debt-laden project. Accordingly, the Kinsley proposal includes all the so called downside risk associated with fundraising without the upside of the debt-free property proposed by Monahan . Therefore the NPS cannot rationally support its preference for the Kinsley proposal.

Moreover, during its September 10 discussion with NPS Monahan stated it had back-up plan that included a mixture of fundraising, debt and equity, which Mohahan would utilize in the event that the level of cash raised through fundraising should prove insufficient to complete the project. NPS asked few questions regarding Monahan's back-up plan and left Monahan with the impression that its approach to financing the project satisfied the government's requirements.

Under Federal Acquisition Regulations ( FAR) 15610 during its discussion with Monahan on September 10, 1997, NPS was required to advise Monahan of deficiencies in its proposal so that the offeror is given an opportunity to satisfy the Governments requirements." The FAR also required NPS attempt to resolve any uncertainties concerning the proposal during the September 10 discussions. (2) NPS failed to advise Monahan that the financing portion of its proposal did not satisfy the governments needs. Therefore , NPS, violated applicable regulations, as well as common sense.

2. Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability.

The NPS also attacked the Monahan proposal on its "Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability" and stated that the Monahan proposal did not have the same level of respect for the way the Visitor Center/Museum complex fit into the Park setting as did the Kinsley proposal. These attacks are without any rational basis. The primary goal of the NPS must be to preserve the natural condition of hallowed ground where the battle was staged and fought. Whereas the Kinsley proposal chose to build within the park and on hallowed ground , Monahan selected a site outside the Park's environment. Therefore the environmental impact on the Park will be significantly greater if Kinsley's proposal is implemented than would be the case if NPS selected the Visitor Center/Museum proposed by Monahan.

3. Related Facilities

The NPS downgraded the Monahan proposal because it determined that the Visitor center and Museum complex proposed by Monahan would be "subordinate" to commercial facilities planned by Monahan. However, Monahan proposed a commercial free Visitor Center and Museum Complex. In contrast to the Kinsley proposal, which has commercial facilities as part of the Museum/Visitor Center complex., Monahan's plan did not include commercial development as an integral part of the NPS's facilities. Under the Monahan proposal, all commercial development would be separate from the NPS complex.

When Monahan raised this point in the debriefing, NPS responded that it was concerned that there may be no buffer between the commercial development proposed by Monahan and the Visitor Center/Museum complex. NPS, however, failed to raise this concern during the discussions it had with Monahan on September 10. NPS's failure to raise what it perceived to be a deficiency in the Monahan proposal is a violation of FAR 15.610 and resulted in an irrational and unsupported decision. Had it raised this concern during discussions, NPS would have learned that Monahan had significant flexibility regarding the layout of the commercial facilities and would have agreed to a buffer between the NPS complex and any commercial development.

(3) 4. Cooperative Agreement

Finally, the NPS downgraded the Monahan proposal based on the draft Cooperative Agreement although it could provide no details concerning the perceive deficiencies in the draft. Once again, there is no rational basis for this decision as Monahan's proposal acknowledged the governments requirements and agreed to what the NPS had requested in the RFP.

Conclusion

The debriefing demonstrated that the Selection Committee did not rationally review the Monahan proposal and is now dedicated to defending its selection of Kinsley rather than correcting a flawed decision. In order to assure that the NPS does what is right for the preservation of the Gettysburg National Military Park and not just what is expedient, our protest must be reviewed by someone who was not involved in the selection of the Kinsley proposal and can provide a fresh look at the whole selection process. Accordingly we hereby request the NPS provide an independent review of the evaluation process in light of our protest ant the NPS revise its selection to The Monahan Group. We are confident that a truly independent review of the RFP process and the proposals received by the NPS will result in the selection of the Monahan proposal.

We look forward to receiving a timely decision on our protest from NPS. Please contact us should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Scott M Heiberg
Patrick J Christmas II

(1) Monahan had requested a debriefing in writing upon being notified of the selection of Kinsley by NPS. NPS did not immediately respond to Monahan's request and Monahan filed its first protest to protest those grounds for protest. After we filed the protest, the NPS agreed to provide Monahan with a debriefing and the debriefing took place on November 24 AND DECEMBER 1, 1997 (2) We have been told that the NPS does not believe it must follow the FAR with regard to the RFP. If this is the position of the NPS, it is misguided. However, regardless of the applicable law, the NPS decision making process must require that the agency notify offerors of perceived deficiencies and provide offerors with an opportunity to address such deficiencies so that the government receives the mnost favorable proposals from each of the offerors. The Selection Committee's practice of withholding its concerns and perceive deficiencies from Monahan has led to an irrational and arbitrary decision. (3) Monahan controls enough property at the proposed location to allow for a substantial buffer between the NPS site and any commercial development.