Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; Altama Delta Corporation;, B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3, May 17, 2001

Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; Altama Delta Corporation;, B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3, May 17, 2001 TITLE: Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; Altama Delta Corporation;, B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3, May 17, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3 DATE: May 17, 2001 ********************************************************************** Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; Altama Delta Corporation;, B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3, May 17, 2001 Decision Matter of: Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; Altama Delta Corporation; Wellco Enterprises, Inc. File: B-287237; B-287237.2; B-287237.3 Date: May 17, 2001 Thomas C. Wheeler, Esq., and Sheila C. Stark, Esq., Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, for Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company; David P. Metzger, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Altama Delta Corporation; and James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Wellco Enterprises, Inc., the protesters. Deniz H. Hardy, Esq., Grayson & Kubli, for McRae Industries, Inc.; and Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, for Rocky Shoes and Boots Inc., intervenors. Sharif T. Dawson, Esq., Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, and Laura Mann Eyester, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where, although agency reasonably determined that small total business set-asides were not appropriate for more than one portion of boot manufacturing requirement, it improperly failed to consider whether non-set-aside portions should be partially set-aside. 2. Where procuring agency treats each of three contracts to be awarded under single solicitation as separate requirements, it is appropriate to perform a small business set-aside determination for each requirement, rather than a partial set-aside determination for the solicitation as a whole. 3. Solicitation providing for best value evaluation, with technical factors more important than price, is subject to the regulations requiring agency to determine whether requirement should be partially set-aside for small business. 4. In considering whether a small business concern is a responsible prospective offeror for purposes of a small business set-aside determination, agency properly considered that the concern had never mass-produced the item, and that another generally capable small business had experienced problems on a prior similar contract. 5. Agency reasonably declined to set aside a second portion of boot manufacturing requirement for small business, where each awardee can receive only one contract, and there are only two prospective responsible small business concerns likely to compete, so that, after award of the first set-aside portion to one of the small businesses, there would not be two small business offers left to be considered for a second set-aside award. DECISION Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Company, Altama Delta Corporation and Wellco Enterprises, Inc. protest the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0100-01-R-0001, issued by the Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia (DSCP) for infantry combat boots for the Marine Corps and the Army. The protesters complain that DSCP improperly failed to set aside the appropriate portion of the requirement for small business concerns. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND The boots are a defense mobilization item--in the event of troop mobilization, there must be a sufficient boot supply to meet troop needs--and a sufficient number of contractors therefore must be kept in production to ensure that surge requirements can be met. Agency Report (AR) at 3-4. The Army has not yet decided whether it will meet its requirement for combat boots through this solicitation. DSCP determined that, if the Army decided to do so, three contracts would have to be awarded to different firms because no one or two producers would have sufficient capacity to meet the surge requirements (provision for which was included in the solicitation, RFP at 78). Id. Consequently, the solicitation provided for the award of three indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts if the Army's requirement is included, with no contractor able to receive more than one award. Request for Proposals (RFP) at 6. Alternatively, the RFP provided that, if the Army decides prior to award not to have its requirement included, only one contract--for the Marine Corps requirement only--will be awarded. Id. The multiple contract alternative divides the required quantities into three "scenarios." Scenario 1 contains the Marine Corps requirement and part of the Army's. Scenarios 2 and 3 each contain half of the remainder of the Army's requirement.