National Linen Service, B-285458, August 22, 2000

B-285458 Aug 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly set acquisition aside for exclusive small business participation is denied where record shows that agency had a reasonable basis to anticipate that it would receive offers from at least two responsible small business concerns. The awardee is to provide the personnel. Although the required services are currently being performed by a small business. Neither the incumbent nor any other capable small business is located in the local geographic area. Will result in an award price exceeding the fair market price for the services. /1/ National contends that as a local large business. It can supply the services at a significantly lower price and that the agency's market research was inadequate because the contracting officer did not consider potential large business prices for the work. View Decision Matter of: National Linen Service File: B-285458 Date: August 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION National Linen Service protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF40-00-B-0006, issued by the Department of the Army for medical linen laundry services at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fort Bragg, North Carolina. National, a large business, contends that the agency improperly issued the solicitation as a total small business set-aside. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on May 11, 2000, as a 100-percent small business set-aside, contemplates the award of a requirements contract, for a base year and 4 option years, to the responsible bidder submitting the low conforming bid. IFB Paras. 52.212-2(a), 52.216-21; Agency Memorandum of Law at 1. The awardee is to provide the personnel, materials, transportation, supplies, equipment, and facilities for laundry services for approximately 90,000 to 100,000 pounds per month of WAMC medical linens. IFB Statement of Work Paras. 1, 5, Technical Exh. 1. The protester contends that the agency failed to perform sufficient market research to support a reasonable expectation of receiving at least two bids from responsible small business concerns at fair market prices. National suggests that, although the required services are currently being performed by a small business, neither the incumbent nor any other capable small business is located in the local geographic area. National contends that the additional transportation costs for out-of-town small businesses, such as the incumbent, will result in an award price exceeding the fair market price for the services. /1/ National contends that as a local large business, it can supply the services at a significantly lower price and that the agency's market research was inadequate because the contracting officer did not consider potential large business prices for the work. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 19.502-2(b), a procurement with an anticipated dollar value of more than $100,000 must be set aside for exclusive small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least two responsible small business concerns and that award will be made at a fair market price. American Med. Response of Conn., Inc., B-278457, Jan. 30, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 44 at 2. The use of any particular method of assessing the availability of small businesses is not required so long as the agency undertakes reasonable efforts to locate responsible small business competitors. The decision whether to set aside a procurement may be based on an analysis of factors such as the prior procurement history, the recommendations of appropriate small business specialists, and market surveys that include responses to Commerce Business Daily (CBD) announcements. SAB Co., B-283883, Jan. 20, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 58 at 1-2; Litton Electron Devices, B-225012, Feb. 13, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 164 at 2-3. Because a decision whether to set aside a procurement is a matter of business judgment within the contracting officer's discretion, our review generally is limited to ascertaining whether that official abused his or her discretion. CardioMetrix, B-271012, May 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 227 at 2. We will not question a small business set-aside determination where the record shows that the evidence before the contracting officer was adequate to support the reasonableness of the conclusion that small business competition reasonably could be expected. Litton Electron Devices, supra. The agency reports that its set-aside determination was based on several factors. First, in considering the procurement history, the agency found that the current, predecessor, and earlier contracts for the same services had been performed by small businesses at reasonable prices. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; Agency Comments at 2.