CRAssociates, Inc.

B-419346 Jan 21, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CRAssociates, Inc. of Newington, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26220R0128, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to provide medical services at a community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) in Escondido, California. The protester challenges the agency's decision to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. File:  B-419346 Date:  January 21, 2021 Matthew R. Keller, Esq., Praemia Law, PLLC, for the protester. Daniel J. McFeely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, 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 businesses 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 and reasonable price. DECISION CRAssociates, Inc. of Newington, Virginia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C26220R0128, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to provide medical services at a community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) in Escondido, California.  The protester challenges the agency’s decision to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a total SDVOSB set-aside on June 29, 2020, contemplates the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of one year and up to nine 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), exh.1, RFP at 3.[1]  The successful contractor will provide CBOC services in support of the VA San Diego Healthcare System.  Id. at 9.  The solicitation requires services for an estimated 4,447 patients per month during the base year and increasing to an estimated 4,859 patients per month in the ninth option year.  Id. at 7-8.  The RFP was issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, and VA acquisition regulations.  Id. at 9.  In January 2019, the contracting officer conducted market research and initially decided to solicit the procurement on an unrestricted basis, using full and open competition.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 451.  After conducting additional market research, the contracting officer noted that other VA contracting officers had set aside for SDVOSBs similar procurements for CBOC services.  Id.  The VA then posted a sources sought notice on beta.SAM.gov on November 5, 2019 and received five responses; four of the responding firms were SDVOSBs and one was a small business.  Id. at 451-452.  According to the agency, three of the four SDVOSBs had “direct experience being prime contractors providing CBOC services with VA PACT [patient aligned care team] model experience.”  Id. After conducting additional market research between November 2019 and April 2020, the contracting officer decided a SDVOSB set-aside was appropriate.  Id.  On June 29, 2020, the VA posted the solicitation via beta.SAM.gov.  Id. at 4.  The VA received [DELETED] responses from SDVOSBs by the October 16 deadline.  Id.  CRAssociates filed this protest with our Office on October 16. DISCUSSION The protester, the incumbent here, challenges the agency’s decision to set aside the procurement for SDVOSBs, arguing the VA cannot reasonably expect to receive proposals from two or more SDVOSBs at fair and reasonable prices.  Protest at 3.  Specifically, the protester alleges that no SDVOSB has the financial capability to perform the contract.  Id. at 4-6.  The protester further contends the solicitation is ambiguous and misleads offerors as it fails to reflect the agency’s “actual needs.”  Id. at 7.  For reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[2] The Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, 38 U.S.C. § 8127, and the VA’s implementing regulations, 48 C.F.R. §§ 819.7004, 819.7005, require the VA to set aside procurements for SDVOSBs if the VA determines there is a reasonable expectation (1) it will receive two or more offers from SDVOSBs, (2) two or more SDVOSBs are capable of performing the work, and (3) award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.  38 U.S.C. § 8127(d); VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) § 819.7005.