SAB Company, B-283883, January 20, 2000

B-283883 Jan 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against agency's determination to set aside procurement for exclusive small business competition is denied where procurement history provided basis for reasonable expectation that offers would be received from at least two responsible small businesses and that award would be at fair market prices. Be set aside for exclusive small business participation where there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small businesses and award will be made at fair market prices. NAVFAC reported in response that its set-aside determination was based on procurement history. Although award was made to a large business (All Star/SAB. Which was issued under a smaller size standard than the one applicable here ($7 million or less in annual receipts versus $20 million). View Decision Matter of: SAB Company File: B-283883 Date: January 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SAB Company, a large business concern and the incumbent contractor (as part of a joint venture), protests the determination by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to set aside for exclusive small business competition request for proposals (RFP) No. N62766-99-R-9050, for supplies and services associated with change of occupancy maintenance and occupied rehabilitations of Navy housing on Guam, Mariana Islands. The protester contends that NAVFAC abused its discretion in determining that this procurement should be set aside for small businesses. We deny the protest. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) directs that an acquisition valued at more than $100,000, as here, be set aside for exclusive small business participation where there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small businesses and award will be made at fair market prices. FAR Sec. 19.502-2(b). In this regard, the decision whether to set aside a procurement may be based on an analysis of factors such as the prior procurement history and market surveys that include responses to Commerce Business Daily (CBD) announcements. PR Newswire, B-279216, Apr. 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 118 at 2. SAB maintains that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for anticipating that adequate small business competition would be received. NAVFAC reported in response that its set-aside determination was based on procurement history, and included a CBD survey of interest. In this regard, under the unrestricted solicitation for the predecessor contract for work similar to the solicitation here, although award was made to a large business (All Star/SAB, A Joint Venture), the agency reports it received two "competitive" offers from "eligible small businesses." Agency Report at 2; Supplemental Agency Report at 2. Further, in response to the CBD pre-solicitation notice for a prior canceled solicitation for work identical to that here, which was issued under a smaller size standard than the one applicable here ($7 million or less in annual receipts versus $20 million), the agency received 18 expressions of interest from small businesses. These expressions of interest included the two small businesses that had submitted offers under the predecessor unrestricted solicitation. Finally, before the prior solicitation was canceled, the agency received nine small business offers, three of which it determined were technically acceptable, and one marginally acceptable (before discussions); the agency considered all four reasonably priced. Based on these factors, along with the increase of the size standard from $7 million to $20 million, the agency believed that it could reasonably expect to receive at least two small business responses, and likely more. Agency Report at 6; Supplemental Agency Report at 1-3; Declaration of Contracting Officer, Nov. 10, 1999; Acquisition Officer's Memorandum to the File, July 30, 1999; Acquisition Plan, July 30, 1999, at 2. (The agency states that its expectations were confirmed by the numerous small business offers it received in response to the current solicitation. Agency Report at 7; Abstract of Offers, Oct. 12, 1999.) In its comments in response to the agency report, SAB disputes that the historical information cited by the agency supported the set-aside determination. Specifically, the protester argues that the small business responses to the predecessor unrestricted solicitation are inadequate to support the set-aside because the agency did not identify the offerors.