B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4, OMNI Government Services, LP, March 22, 2006

B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4, OMNI Government Services, LP, March 22, 2006 TITLE: B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4, OMNI Government Services, LP, March 22, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4 DATE: March 22, 2006 ******************************************************************************** B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4, OMNI Government Services, LP, March 22, 2006 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: OMNI Government Services, LP File: B-297240.2; B-297240.3; B-297240.4 Date: March 22, 2006 Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, for the protester. William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for Alutiiq Global Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Beth Biez, Esq., Department of the Army, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Laura Mann Eyester, Esq., U.S. Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency reasonably determined that revised requirement for multimedia and visual information services would result in a price differential exceeding 25 percent of the cost of the incumbent contract and, therefore, in accordance with the regulations implementing the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) program, the proposed contract constituted a new requirement that could be submitted for performance under the SBA's 8(a) program, notwithstanding the incumbent small business contractor's interest in competing for the work. DECISION OMNI Government Services, LP, a small business concern, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), and the Small Business Administration (SBA), to accept under the SBA's section 8(a) business development program a requirement for multimedia and visual information services[1] for performance by Alutiiq Global Solutions, LLC, an Alaska native corporation. We deny the protest. OMNI is the incumbent contractor, providing certain multimedia and visual information services for AMCOM. On January 19, 2006, AMCOM notified OMNI that the SBA had accepted AMCOM's requirement for multimedia and visual information services for performance by Alutiiq, a participant in the SBA's 8(a) business development program. AR, Tab B, Letter from Contracting Officer to Protester (Jan. 19, 2006). OMNI objects that the proposed contract does not qualify as a "new requirement" and, therefore, the proposed contract cannot be placed in the 8(a) program. 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.504 (2005). Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes the SBA to contract with other government agencies, and to arrange for the performance of those contracts via subcontracts awarded to socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (2000). The SBA and contracting agencies have broad discretion in selecting procurements for the 8(a) program, and a contracting officer has broad discretion to let a noncompetitive contract under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the procuring agency and the SBA. NANA Servs., LLC, B-297177.3, B-297177.4, Jan. 3, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 4 at 2. The Army and the SBA argue that the scope of work has been changed so significantly from that in OMNI's incumbent contract that the price differential (which the regulation refers to as a "price adjustment," and in this case is a decrease in price) would exceed 25 percent, thereby making the proposed contract per se a new requirement under the applicable regulation. 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.504(c)(1)(ii)(C).[2] To reach this conclusion, the Army and the SBA calculated the differential by comparing the estimated maximum dollar value of the base year and four option years for the protested requirement--$6,711,000[3]--to the value of the incumbent contract, which they calculated as $9,791,025, which was adjusted for inflation.[4] Comparing the inflation-adjusted incumbent contract value and the government estimate for the 8(a) contract, the Army argues, and the record confirms, that there was a percentage differential (i.e., a decrease) of 31 percent. Army Request for Summary Dismissal, attach.