Protests Based on Sole Source Procurement, Small Business Set-Asides, and Solicitation Specifications

Protests against procurement actions were based on allegedly improper sole-source procurement, alleged duplication of work statements in solicitations, failure to include small business set-asides, and alleged errors in the solicitation. Protests alleging that extensions of a contract should have been competitively procured and that certain solicitation requirements were duplicative were untimely filed and issues raised were not "significant." Other bases of protest were denied because: there was no impropriety in the use of identical language in more than one solicitation; protesters did not prove allegations that the contract awarded under an unrestricted solicitation may be used to take work away from small business contracts awarded under 100 percent small business set-asides and that a large business might obtain a contract under such a set-aside; legislation does not mandate small business set-asides for any particular procurement, and the decision not to use such a set-aside was within the discretion of the contracting officer; the use of an incorrect standard industrial classification in the solicitation made no practical difference in the award; and awards of contracts while protests were pending were not improper.