[Protest of NARA Contract Award for Security Guard Services]
Highlights
A firm protested a National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) contract award for security guard services, contending that: (1) NARA unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal; (2) the solicitation was defective, since it failed to require that all costs be separately itemized; (3) NARA advised it on what wage increase rate to use in its bid; and (4) NARA improperly induced it to extend its previous contract. GAO held that: (1) NARA reasonably evaluated the protester's performance as the incumbent contractor and properly made award to the technically acceptable low bidder; (2) the protester untimely filed after bid opening its protest of the alleged defective specifications; (3) there was no evidence to support the protester's allegation that NARA conducted unequal price discussions; and (4) it would not consider the contract extension, since it was a matter of contract administration. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
B-232303.2, Sep 13, 1988, 88-2 CPD 241
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Allegation substantiation - Lacking - GAO review DIGEST: Protest that agency was required by Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 19.501(g) to issue solicitation as small business set-aside because previous requirement had been procured on that basis is dismissed where previous procurement was not a small business set-aside but instead was processed through the section 8(a) program under the Small Business Act.
Logistical Support, Inc.:
Logistical Support, Inc. objects to the Department of the Army's decision to issue, as a small disadvantaged business (SDB) set-aside, solicitation No. DACH77-88-B-1058 for mess attendant services at Schofield Barracks, Hawii. Logistical contends that the set-aside for SDB is not permissible because this service previously has been acquired successfully by the contracting officer on the basis of a small business set-aside. Logistical contends that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 19.501(g) (FAC 84-37) prohibits an SDB set-aside in these circumstances. FAR Sec. 19.501(g) provides that once a product or service has been acquired successfully by a contracting office on the basis of a small business set-aside, all future requirements of that office for that particular product or service shall, if required by agency regulations, be acquired on the basis of a repetitive set-aside. In addition, a Department of Defense interim rule published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1988, precludes the use of a SDB set-aside where the product or service successfully has been acquired previously under a small business set-aside. Interim rule Sec. 219.502-72(b)(1), 53 Fed. Reg. 5,123 (1988) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. Sec. 219.502-72(b)(1)).
The Army has advised our Office that the previous requirement was not competed as a small business set-aside, but was processed under the section 8(a) program established by the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1982). Indeed, we recently dismissed an identical protest of this procurement precisely because an award under the section 8(a) program is not an award under a small business set-aside, such that the Army was required to set aside this subsequent solicitation for small businesses. See MLB Professional Services, B-232303, Aug. 26, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para.
The same rule applies here. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.