Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc.

B-414365 May 18, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc., of Reno, Nevada, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA262-17-Q-0438, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for three types of medical devices. The protester contends that the agency's market research provides insufficient support for the VA's decision to set this requirement aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc. File:  B-414365 Date:  May 18, 2017 Terrance Walker, for the protester. David G. Fagan, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s decision to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns is denied where the agency had a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from at least two such firms and that award would be made at a fair market price. DECISION Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc., of Reno, Nevada, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA262-17-Q-0438, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for three types of medical devices.  The protester contends that the agency’s market research provides insufficient support for the VA’s decision to set this requirement aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, set-aside for SDVOSB concerns and issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) parts 12, 13, and 19 and VA acquisition regulations, sought quotations for mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT), holter monitoring, and cardiokey devices for patient care.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ, at 2, 4.  The period of performance would be from February 22, 2017 to February 21, 2018.  Id.  Award would be made to the firm offering the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation.  Id. at 4.  The RFQ stated that offers would be considered technically acceptable if the quoted products and services were brand name or equal.  Id.  The agency assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334510, Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing to the RFQ; the RFQ advised firms that the Small Business Administration (SBA) had issued a nonmanufacturing rule class waiver for that NAICS code.  Id. at 1, 2.  The deadline for quotation submission was February 14, 2017.  Id. at 4. On February 13, Walker filed this protest challenging the adequacy of the agency’s market research.  Walker asserts that the agency unreasonably concluded that it would receive two or more quotations from SDVOSB concerns and that award would be made at a fair market price.[2]  The agency argues that the VA’s set-aside decision had a reasonable basis. DISCUSSION Generally, the decision whether to set aside a procurement for SDVOSB concerns is a business judgment within the contracting officer’s discretion, which we will not disturb absent a showing that it was unreasonable.  Aero Sage LLC, B-414314, B‑414314.2, May 5, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ __ at 6; Starlight Corp., Inc., B-410471.2, Dec. 30, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 383 at 5.  No particular method of assessing the availability of capable small businesses is required; rather, the assessment must be based on sufficient facts so as to establish its reasonableness.  Starlight Corp., Inc., supra; Mountain West Helicopters, LLC; Trans Aero, Ltd., B‑408150, B‑408150.2, July 1, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 152 at 3.  We will not question an agency's 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.  Starlight Corp., Inc., supra.  Further, in making set-aside decisions, agencies need not make actual determinations of responsibility or decisions tantamount to determinations of responsibility; rather, they need only make an informed business judgment that there is a reasonable expectation of receiving acceptably priced offers from small business concerns that are capable of performing the contract.  InfoReliance Corp., B-413298, Sept.