Air Transport Association, B-278621, February 19, 1998

B-278621 Feb 19, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST A procurement for support services for the evaluation of jet aviation emissions was properly set aside exclusively for small business participation where the contracting officer reasonably determined that submission of offers reasonably could be expected from at least two responsible small business concerns at a fair market price. Task 1 was for the review of information and the preparation of a working paper report concerning fuel use and nitrogen oxides trade-off issues based on engine designs. Task 2 was for the research of information on high speed civil transportation and the preparation of a memo discussing likely scenarios of environmental impacts relating to engine design. The delivery date for a draft memo for Task 2 was January 30. View Decision Matter of: Air Transport Association File: B-278621 Date: February 19, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Air Transport Association protests request for proposals (RFP) No. XX7001, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a small business set-aside for support services for the evaluation of jet aviation emissions. Air Transport protests the small business set aside and other terms of the RFP. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. The RFP, issued on October 27, 1997, by publication in the Commerce Business Daily, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price contract for two tasks. Task 1 was for the review of information and the preparation of a working paper report concerning fuel use and nitrogen oxides trade-off issues based on engine designs. Task 2 was for the research of information on high speed civil transportation and the preparation of a memo discussing likely scenarios of environmental impacts relating to engine design. The RFP stated that delivery of a draft working paper for Task 1 would be required within 4 weeks of award, and delivery of the final working paper would be required within 2 weeks of the contractor receiving EPA's written comments on the draft. The delivery date for a draft memo for Task 2 was January 30, 1998, and delivery of a final memo was required within 1 month of the contractor receiving EPA's written comments. The government estimate for the procurement was $40,000. The RFP stated that the award would be made using simplified acquisition procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13, and that the procurement was set aside exclusively for small business participation. Proposals were due and submitted on November 13. Air Transport did not submit a proposal. Immediately prior to the time set for submission of proposals, Air Transport, which is not a small business concern, protested the delivery terms for Task 1 and the small business set-aside, alleging that the requirements for the draft working paper cannot be performed within 4 weeks, particularly by a small business concern. Air Transport also alleges that the Task 1 requirements cannot be performed for less than $100,000 and, to the extent the agency contends that its actual minimum needs can be performed for less than that amount, the agency has relaxed the RFP requirements without amending the RFP. Air Transport also protested the terms of the conflict of interest provision in the RFP. Under FAR Sec. 13.105(a), an acquisition with an estimated value exceeding $2,500 and not exceeding $100,000 is reserved exclusively for small business concerns and shall be set aside in accordance with Subpart 19.5. FAR Sec. 19.502-2(a) states, in relevant part, that a set aside of such acquisition is automatic unless: the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. As a general rule, the decision as to whether to set aside a particular procurement is within the discretion of the contracting agency. Aspen Sys. Corp., B-272213.2, Oct. 22, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 153 at 3. We will not question a set-aside decision unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. ARO Corp., B-231438, July 22, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 74 at 2. Here, the government estimate was well within the $2,500 to $100,000 range. This estimate was based on EPA's past experience acquiring similar services. Although Air Transport generally disagrees that the RFP requirements could be performed for less than $100,000, it has not provided any evidence to support this general allegation. Even assuming, as the protester alleges, that more services were required by the terms of the RFP than were reflected in the agency's estimate, Air Transport has not provided any evidence to show that such additional services reasonably could be expected to increase the estimated value of this procurement to exceed $100,000.