Information Ventures, Inc., B-279924, August 7, 1998

B-279924 Aug 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that request for proposals should have been set aside for exclusive small business participation is denied where the solicitation requirements called for particular technical expertise. The solicitation was issued on an unrestricted basis on April 2. Section I of the solicitation statement of work (SOW) notes that the technical difficulty of the responses will vary widely and requires that the contractor "shall ensure that all responses are based on up-to-date and appropriate EPA-approved material.". The contracting officer engaged in various research activities in order to determine whether the agency was likely to receive proposals from two or more small business sources capable of performing the contract requirements. View Decision Matter of: Information Ventures, Inc. File: B-279924 Date: August 7, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Information Ventures, Inc. (IVI) protests the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to issue request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-CI-98-10345, for safe drinking water hotline services on an unrestricted basis. IVI contends that the procurement should be set aside for exclusive small business participation. We deny the protest. The solicitation was issued on an unrestricted basis on April 2, 1998 seeking proposals to provide continued operation of a hotline to support various programs authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f to 300j-26 (1994). Among other things, the solicitation contemplates the performance of research and information retrieval responding to an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 inquiries per month. Section I of the solicitation statement of work (SOW) notes that the technical difficulty of the responses will vary widely and requires that the contractor "shall ensure that all responses are based on up-to-date and appropriate EPA-approved material." The contracting officer states that she received the procurement request from EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in January, 1998 and, following routine procedures, forwarded the request to EPA's Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) for input regarding whether the procurement should be set aside for small businesses. The OSDBU representative requested that additional information be sought regarding potential small business sources capable of performing the requirements. Contracting Officer's Statement, May 26, 1998, at 1. Thereafter, the contracting officer engaged in various research activities in order to determine whether the agency was likely to receive proposals from two or more small business sources capable of performing the contract requirements. First, the contracting officer considered the past procurement history related to this requirement for which the current contract had been awarded only 2 years previously, and ascertained that only two technically acceptable proposals had been received, neither of which was from a small business. The contracting officer also considered a similar procurement that had been conducted by EPA for a wetlands hotline in January 1997 and again found that no proposals had been received from small businesses. The contracting officer next conducted market research using several Internet search tools, including "i-Mart," "GSA Advantage," and the "Thomas Register." /1/ The contracting officer's Internet search identified some small businesses that operate hotlines, but none which appeared to have the specific expertise necessary to perform the contemplated contract requirements. Id. at 2. The contracting officer then met with the OSDBU representative, described her research activities to him, and advised that she did not believe the agency was likely to receive proposals from two small businesses that were technically qualified to perform the contract requirements. The OSDBU representative agreed with the contracting officer's assessment and, on February 20, formally recommended that the procurement be conducted on an unrestricted basis. Id.; EPA Record of Procurement Request Review, Feb. 20, 1998. Thereupon, on February 20, EPA published a synopsis of the procurement requirements in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD), describing the services that would be required and inviting inquiries. Some 6 weeks later, the RFP was issued requesting that proposals be submitted by April 30. No small business sources contacted EPA from the time the CBD synopsis was issued until April 17, when IVI first contacted EPA to assert that the solicitation should be set aside for small businesses.