Bluehorse Corporation

B-414578 Jul 20, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bluehorse Corporation, of Reno, Nevada, an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE), protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00477, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for multi-shot capable electronic control devices. Bluehorse contends that the agency should have set the solicitation aside for ISBEEs and that the agency's requirement for Taser "or equal" electronic control devices is restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Bluehorse Corporation File:  B-414578 Date:  July 20, 2017 Akenaten Bluehorse, for the protester. Brian A. Quint, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's decision not to set aside procurement for Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEEs) is denied where agency's market research demonstrated that agency was not likely to receive quotations from at least two ISBEEs. DECISION Bluehorse Corporation, of Reno, Nevada, an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE), protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00477, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for multi-shot capable electronic control devices.[1]  Bluehorse contends that the agency should have set the solicitation aside for ISBEEs and that the agency's requirement for Taser "or equal" electronic control devices is restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 23, 2017, the agency issued a sources sought notice seeking qualified Indian Economic Enterprise (IEE) or ISBEE contractors to provide brand name or equal products meeting the minimum characteristics described therein.  The notice sought brand name Taser model X2 electronic control devices or equal (as well as components such as holsters and a high definition camera) that conform to a list of salient characteristics including, as relevant here: Multi Shot:  Must be able to fire two cartridges without having to change spent cartridge once fired.  Weapon must be able to hold and effectively fire two cartridges with the pull of [the] trigger without changing cartridge.  Single shot ECD's will not be considered. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Sources Sought Notice (Mar. 23, 2017), at 5 (emphasis in the original).  The sources sought notice instructed potential vendors to respond to both the contracting officer (CO) and the contract specialist (CS) by March 28.  Id. Bluehorse submitted the only response to the sources sought notice, however its response did not provide the required information establishing that its equivalent product met the salient characteristics.[2]  AR, Tab 8, Email from Bluehorse to CO and CS (Mar. 28, 2017); CO Statement (COS) at 3.  Bluehorse's response prompted the CO and the CS to request a "detailed spec [specifications] sheet" on the product that Bluehorse states meets the agency's requirements by April 3.  AR, Tab 8, Email from CO to Bluehorse (Mar. 31, 2017).  The CO instructed Bluehorse to "comply with the instructions of the sources sought," which included responding to both the CO and the CS.  Id.  On April 3, Bluehorse responded via email to the CS, who was out of the office at that time, and provided technical specifications regarding two products, The Enforcer and The Raptor.  AR, Tab 8a, Email from Bluehorse to CS (Apr. 3, 2017); COS at 3. The CO, who had not received Bluehorse's April 3 email, verbally authorized a deviation from the Buy Indian requirement on April 11, on the basis of Bluehorses's initial response to the sources sought notice.  The deviation was signed on April 13.[3]  AR, Tab 7, Buy Indian Deviation. This deviation was based on a determination that there was no reasonable expectation of receiving equivalent offers from two or more IEEs that would be competitive in terms of market price, quality, and delivery (or from at least from one IEE if the purchase fails to exceed the dollar threshold described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 13.003).  Id.; COS at 3. On April 11, the agency issued the RFQ, as a combined synopsis/solicitation, under commercial item acquisition and simplified acquisition procedures of FAR subparts 12.6 and 13.5.  AR, Tab 6, RFQ at 3.  The RFQ which contemplated the award of a fixed‐price contract, was issued as a small business set‐aside.  Id. at 5.  Relevant to this protest, the RFQ contained the same specifications that were in the sources sought notice; the specifications were under the heading "Specifications/ Capabilities (Brand name or Equal)."  Id.