Latvian Connection, LLC

B-412701 Apr 22, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Latvian Connection, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concern of Kuwait City, Kuwait, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-16-R-0016 (RFP-0016), issued by the Department of the Air Force for fitness equipment. Latvian alleges that the solicitation should have been set aside for small businesses or SDVOSBs. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Latvian Connection, LLC File:  B-412701 Date:  April 22, 2016 Keven L. Barnes, Latvian Connection, LLC, for the protester. Heather M. Mandelkehr, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that procurement should be set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses is denied where agency’s market research established that there are not two small businesses capable of manufacturing the products sought. DECISION Latvian Connection, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concern of Kuwait City, Kuwait, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8601-16-R-0016 (RFP-0016), issued by the Department of the Air Force for fitness equipment.[1]  Latvian alleges that the solicitation should have been set aside for small businesses or SDVOSBs. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On December 29, 2015, the Air Force posted RFP-0016 on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website using the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR Part 13.  RFP-0016 at 1.  The solicitation, which was issued on an unrestricted basis, contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract to provide various types of fitness equipment for both the Dodge and Jarvis gyms located on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.  Id. at 1, 4.  The solicitation states that award will be made to the responsible offeror submitting a proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, is evaluated as being technically acceptable, and submits the lowest price.  Id. at 1.  Several months before issuing RFP-0016, the Air Force attempted to fulfill the fitness equipment requirement for each gym separately under two independent solicitations.  Contracting Officer (CO) Statement of Facts at 3.  The other two solicitations were both posted to FedBizOpps on June 25 and were identified by RFP Nos. FA8601‑15-T-0189 (RFP-0189) and FA8601-15-R-0057 (RFP-0057).[2]  The agency did not set aside the RFPs for small businesses or SDVOSBs because market research indicated that there was no expectation that at least two small businesses would submit offers.[3]  Id.  The market research performed by the agency consisted of online research in addition to posting a sources sought synopsis to FedBizOpps on June 3, and evaluating the responses that were received.[4]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Jarvis Gym Equipment Sources Sought, at 1; Tab 5(b), Jarvis Gym Market Research Memorandum, at 1.  Of the offers received in response to RFP-0057 and RFP‑0189, only two were from small businesses, and only one of those proposals was from a fitness equipment manufacturer.[5]  CO Statement of Facts at 4; AR, Tab 10(b), Dodge and Jarvis Gym Market Research Memorandum, at 1.  The agency subsequently cancelled both solicitations because none of the offers was evaluated as being technically acceptable.  CO Statement of Facts at 4. After the cancellations, the agency re-evaluated its requirements and then issued RFP-0016.  CO Statement of Facts at 4.  Upon re-evaluation, the Air Force combined the fitness equipment requirements of the two cancelled RFPs, included a change to the suggested manufacturer of the equipment, and changed equipment types and quantities.  Id. at 4-5.  The closing date for the receipt of proposals was February 3, 2016.[6]  RFP-0016, Amend. 004, at 1.  Latvian filed its protest with our Office on February 2.  DISCUSSION Latvian primarily argues that the solicitation should be set aside for small businesses or SDVOSBs because, in its view, there are two or more small businesses and SDVOSBs capable of fulfilling the requirement.