HurtVet Subcontracting, LLC (36C26220R0173)

B-419139 Dec 02, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights HurtVet Subcontracting, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned, small business (SDVOSB) of Lillian, Alabama, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26220R0173, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for testing and maintenance of the fire, life, and safety systems for all buildings located at the VA's Long Beach Healthcare System campus. HurtVet argues that the agency improperly failed to set the acquisition aside either for SDVOSB concerns or veteran-owned small business (VOSB) concerns. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  HurtVet Subcontracting, LLC File:  B-419139 Date:  December 2, 2020 Mark R. Thomas, Esq., and Marcos Gonzalez, Esq., Reid Law PC, for the protester. Daniel McFeely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to conduct sufficient market research prior to setting aside the procurement for small business concerns is denied where the record shows the agency conducted reasonable market research. DECISION   HurtVet Subcontracting, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned, small business (SDVOSB) of Lillian, Alabama, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26220R0173, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for testing and maintenance of the fire, life, and safety systems for all buildings located at the VA’s Long Beach Healthcare System campus.  HurtVet argues that the agency improperly failed to set the acquisition aside either for SDVOSB concerns or veteran-owned small business (VOSB) concerns. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Prior to issuing the solicitation, the agency conducted market research to determine if the solicitation should be set aside for either SDVOSB concerns or VOSB concerns.  The agency initially performed research in its Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database to determine if there were any SDVOSBs or VSOBs capable of performing the services.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The agency’s initial research identified three companies that specialized in design build and electrical work, but the agency determined that none of these firms were capable of performing the required services.  AR, exh. 4, Market Research Report, at 3. On August 11, 2020, in an effort to validate its initial finding, the agency published a sources sought notice seeking expressions of interest from SDVOSB and VOSB concerns.  AR, exh. 3, Sources Sought Notice.  The agency received two responses to this notice; one from an SDVOSB, and the other from a small business, both of whom were determined capable of providing the services required.  AR, exh. 4, Market Research Report, at 3.  The protester did not respond to the agency’s sources sought notice.  Based on these results, the agency decided to issue the solicitation as a small business set-aside, concluding that there were not two or more SDVOSBs or VOSBs capable of meeting the agency’s requirement.  Id. After preparing its market research report, the agency sought the concurrence of the cognizant small business liaison who agreed that the procurement should not be set aside for SDVOSBs or VOSBs based on the results of the agency’s market research, and agreed that it would be appropriate to conduct the acquisition as a small business set-aside.  AR, exh. 5, VA Small Business Liaison Approval at 1.  On August 20, the contracting officer posted a pre-solicitation notice announcing the solicitation and seeking small business vendors interested in providing a proposal.  AR, exh. 6, Pre-Solicitation Notice.  Once again, the protester did not respond to this notice, nor did the agency receive an expression of interest from any other vendors.  COS at 1.  On August 24, the agency issued the RFP as a small business set-aside with a proposal submission deadline of September 11.  AR, exh. 1, RFP at 1.  On August 27, the protester filed an agency-level protest challenging the terms of the RFP, arguing that it should be set aside for SDVOSB or VOSB concerns.  The agency denied HurtVet’s agency-level protest by letter dated September 3.  AR, exh. 8, Agency Level Protest Decision.  Thereafter, on September 14, HurtVet filed this protest.  DISCUSSION The protester argues that the agency unreasonably decided to set aside the procurement for small business concerns, instead of SDVOSBs or VOSBs, based on inadequate market research.  Protest at 3-4.  More specifically, the protester argues that the agency unreasonably required all interested parties to affirmatively respond to the sources sought announcement.  Id.