Quanterion Solutions, Inc. (ACRRDNTI191166-001 )

B-419438 Dec 28, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Quanterion Solutions, Inc. (QSI), a small business of Utica, New York, protests the decision of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to place a requirement for support services to the Defense Threat Reduction Information Analysis Center (DTRIAC) under SBA's section 8(a) business development program. QSI argues SBA improperly accepted this requirement into the 8(a) program without first determining whether acceptance would adversely impact small businesses. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Quanterion Solutions, Inc. File:  B-419438 Date:  December 28, 2020 Bret S. Wacker, Esq., Clark Hill PLC, and Evan A. Rossi, Rossi & Rossi, PLLC, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Alissandra D. Young, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for Kapili Services, LLC, the intervenor. Judith L. Richardson, Esq., Defense Threat Reduction Agency, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that Small Business Administration improperly accepted a requirement into the 8(a) program without performing an adverse impact analysis on existing small business concerns is dismissed as untimely where the record shows that the protester knew or should have known of the factual basis for its allegation more than 10 days prior to raising it. DECISION   Quanterion Solutions, Inc. (QSI), a small business of Utica, New York, protests the decision of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to place a requirement for support services to the Defense Threat Reduction Information Analysis Center (DTRIAC) under SBA’s section 8(a) business development program.  QSI argues SBA improperly accepted this requirement into the 8(a) program without first determining whether acceptance would adversely impact small businesses. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2020, the agency posted a notice on beta.SAM.gov, stating that DTRA planned to set aside its DTRIAC requirement for fiscal years 2021-2026 as a direct award to an 8(a) small business concern that would be named on a later date.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 7.  Following an inquiry from QSI, the agency informed the protester, on July 22, that DTRA provided SBA with an 8(a) offering letter for its DTRIAC requirement on June 25, and that in the absence of a response from SBA, there was “de facto acceptance” of the agency’s requirement into the 8(a) program.[1]  Protest, exh. C.  During the months of July and August, the protester contacted both SBA and DTRA seeking information about the circumstances of DTRA’s submission of its offering letter to SBA.  See Protest, exhs. D-G.  On August 14, in response to QSI’s inquiries, SBA notified the protester that an adverse impact determination was not required, in this instance, because the DTRIAC work was considered a “new requirement” under the governing regulations.[2]  Protest, exh. I.  SBA explained that to reach this conclusion, it analyzed the performance work statement for the new DTRIAC requirement supplied by DTRA, and the DTRA contracting officer’s justification for determining that the agency’s needs represented a new requirement from the currently-performed DTRIAC work.  Id.  That same day, the protester responded to SBA, disputing the conclusion that an adverse impact determination was not required.  Protest, exh. J.  SBA reaffirmed its analysis by email to the protester on August 19.  Protest, exh. K.  DTRA then posted a notice on beta.SAM.gov on August 20, stating that it planned to set aside its DTRIAC requirement for direct award to Kapili.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. 12.  On August 26, DTRA informed the protester that the solicitation for the DTRIAC requirement for fiscal years 2021-2026 had not been issued, and that the solicitation would not be made publically available.  Protest, exh. N.  That same day, the agency advised the protester that following further discussions with SBA, “SBA did accept the DTRIAC [fiscal year 2021-2026] requirement into the 8(a) program.”  Id.  Three months later, on November 25, QSI filed the instant protest.[3] DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s intended award to Kapili under the 8(a) program, arguing that the SBA was required to first perform a small business adverse impact analysis because DTRA’s work does not constitute a new requirement.[4]  Protest at 8-21.  DTRA responds that QSI’s protest is untimely, arguing, among other things, that the firm filed its protest more than 10 days after it knew or should have known the basis for its protest.  Req.