Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-276405; B-276405.2, June

Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-276405; B-276405.2, June BNUMBER: B-276405; B-276405.2 DATE: June 9, 1997 TITLE: Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-276405; B-276405.2, June 9, 1997 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Security Consultants Group, Inc. File: B-276405; B-276405.2 Date:June 9, 1997 James H. Roberts III, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, for the protester. Hector Gonzalez Sanchez, for H.G. Security System, Inc., an intervenor. Scarlett D. Grose, Esq., General Services Administration, and David R. Kohler, Esq., and Timothy C. Treanor, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST In offering a requirement to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for acceptance into its 8(a) program, the contracting agency prejudicially failed to comply with the regulatory requirement to provide SBA with complete and accurate information regarding the proposed offering by not identifying the protester as an 8(a) concern which had expressed an interest in being considered for the acquisition. DECISION Security Consultants Group, Inc. (SCG) protests the failure of the General Services Administration (GSA) to advise the Small Business Administration (SBA) of its interest in being considered for the award of a subcontract by SBA under its 8(a) program for the performance of site assessments and the installation of security systems for various GSA controlled buildings and/or facilities within Metropolitan New York City and the states of New Jersey and New York. SCG argues that it was prejudiced by GSA's failure to comply with the applicable regulation governing the offering of the requirement to SBA. We sustain the protests. GSA's requirement was for an indefinite quantity contract with a minimum ordering limitation of $300,000 and a maximum ordering limitation of $3,000,000. GSA's contracting officer's offering letter to SBA stated the following: "To confirm our previous conversations, the above requirement has been identified by our agency as suitable for procurement under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. This is an indefinite quantity contract with an estimated minimum of $300,000 and an estimated maximum of $3,000,000. The contract performance will begin March 1, 1997 and end December 31, 1997. When you [SBA] identify a suitable 8(a) subcontractor, please have them contact me to begin negotiations."[1] SBA subsequently notified GSA that it accepted GSA's offering on behalf of H.G. Security System, Inc. (HGSS), an 8(a) concern located in Brooklyn, New York. SCG, an 8(a) concern located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, protests the failure of GSA to advise SBA of the firm's interest in being considered for the award of a subcontract under SBA's 8(a) program to perform GSA's requirement. The record shows that before GSA even offered the requirement to SBA, SCG met with GSA contracting personnel and expressed its interest in performing GSA's requirement. GSA concedes that it was aware, prior to sending its offering letter to SBA, of SCG's interest. GSA's offering letter, however, contained no reference to SCG. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes SBA to contract with government agencies and to arrange for performance of such contracts by awarding subcontracts to socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. 15 U.S.C. sec. 637(a) (1994). The Act affords SBA and contracting agencies broad discretion in selecting procurements for the 8(a) program. We will not consider a protest challenging a decision to procure under the 8(a) program absent a showing of possible bad faith on the part of government officials or that regulations may have been violated. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.5(b)(3) (1997); Grace Indus., Inc., B-274378, Nov. 8, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 178 at 2. Here, SCG argues that GSA prejudicially failed to comply with the requirement at 13 C.F.R. sec. 124.308(c) to furnish SBA with complete and accurate information regarding the proposed offering which directly impacted SBA's selection of an 8(a) concern to perform GSA's requirement. In making decisions regarding 8(a) acquisitions, SBA is entitled to rely on the contracting officer's representations regarding the offered requirement. In this regard, SBA's regulations place the primary responsibility on the procuring agency to submit all relevant information necessary to SBA's decision-making process. 13 C.F.R. sec. 124.308; Comint Sys. Corp., B-274853; B-274853.2, Jan. 8, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 14 at 3. In this case, the SBA states, and we agree, that GSA's offering letter did not provide complete and accurate information as required under 13 C.F.R. sec.