Carriage Abstract, Inc.

Carriage Abstract, Inc. TITLE: Carriage Abstract, Inc. BNUMBER: B-290676; B-290676.2 DATE: August 15, 2002 ********************************************************************** Carriage Abstract, Inc., B-290676; B-290676.2, August 15, 2002 Decision Matter of: Carriage Abstract, Inc. File: B-290676; B-290676.2 Date: August 15, 2002 Alfred J. Verdi, Esq., for the protester. Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's award of contracts to three small businesses, without consideration of protester's large business offer, is unobjectionable where the awards were made in accordance with solicitation terms providing a cascading set-aside preference for small business awards, without consideration of any large business offer received, where two or more competitive offers were received from qualified small business concerns. DECISION Carriage Abstract, Inc. protests the award of three contracts to small business concerns under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-PHI-00851, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing agent services related to the sale of HUD-owned single-family residences in Maryland. Three contracts were contemplated under the RFP--one for each of three geographic regions--for a base year and two option periods. Carriage, a large business and the incumbent provider of the required services, contends that the agency was required to consider its proposal and that, in not doing so, the agency improperly awarded contracts to small business offerors in excess of fair market prices. We deny the protest. As a matter of background, the current requirement is a reprocurement of services initially solicited as a total small business set-aside procurement, under which a contract had been awarded to Carriage. That procurement was cancelled, however, due to a successful size status protest filed with the Small Business Administration (SBA) by another firm, and Carriage's unsuccessful appeal of that decision. The current solicitation also was initially issued as a small business set-aside. Shortly after issuance, however, the solicitation was amended to instead provide a cascading set-aside preference for awards to small businesses only where sufficient small business competition is received. Specifically, the RFP provided the following "set-aside award" terms: (a) All potential offerors may submit proposals for any or all of the geographic areas specified in . . . this solicitation. (b)(1) In accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)] Subpart 19.8, any award(s) for a geographic area covered by this solicitation will be made on a competitive basis to eligible Section 8(a) business concerns, provided that a minimum of two (2) competitive offers are received from eligible Section 8(a) business concerns for the geographic area. (2) If a minimum of two (2) competitive offers from eligible Section 8(a) concerns are not received, any award(s) for a geographic area covered by this solicitation will be made on a competitive basis to eligible small business concerns in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.5, provided that a minimum of two (2) competitive offers are received from eligible small business concerns for the geographic area. (3) If a minimum of two (2) competitive offers from eligible small business concerns are not received, any award(s) for a geographic area covered by this solicitation will be made on the basis of full and open competition from among all responsible business concerns submitting offers for the geographic area. RFP � M-5, amend. 1, at 5. The closing date for receipt of proposals was August 3, 2001. The agency received 11 small business proposals; the 2 submitted by section 8(a) concerns were determined to be technically unacceptable. Five of the small business proposals were found technically acceptable, but one of them was considered to be unreasonably high-priced, so it was not considered further. Most of the four remaining competitive proposals provided offers for more than one of the three geographic areas to be awarded; accordingly, each area offered was considered as a separate offer.