Skip to main content

B-227920, Jul 15, 1987, 87-2 CPD 50

B-227920 Jul 15, 1987
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Socio-Economic Policies - Labor surplus set-asides - Propriety - Competition sufficiency DIGEST: A Labor Surplus Area (LSA) set-aside is proper when the contracting agency has a reasonable expectation of competition from a sufficient number of LSA concerns so that award may be made to an LSA concern at a reasonable price. SFC is not located in an LSA and thus cannot compete for these line items. Provides that a procurement shall be set-aside for award to LSA concerns when the contracting agency has a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from a sufficient number of responsible LSA concerns so that award will be made at a reasonable price. All of whom are located in an LSA.

View Decision

B-227920, Jul 15, 1987, 87-2 CPD 50

PROCUREMENT - Socio-Economic Policies - Labor surplus set-asides - Propriety - Competition sufficiency DIGEST: A Labor Surplus Area (LSA) set-aside is proper when the contracting agency has a reasonable expectation of competition from a sufficient number of LSA concerns so that award may be made to an LSA concern at a reasonable price.

Specialty Foods Corporation:

Specialty Foods Corporation (SFC) protests the decision of the Veterans Administration to set aside for Labor Surplus Area (LSA) concerns line items 16 through 47 of solicitation No. M4-55-87 for canned soups and beef stew. SFC is not located in an LSA and thus cannot compete for these line items. We dismiss the protest.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. Sec. 20.201-1 (1986), provides that a procurement shall be set-aside for award to LSA concerns when the contracting agency has a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from a sufficient number of responsible LSA concerns so that award will be made at a reasonable price. From SFC's initial submission to our Office, it seems reasonable to conclude that the VA has such an expectation regarding the above cited line items in this solicitation; SFC has specifically listed three ostensibly responsible firms, all of whom are located in an LSA.

We see no basis upon which to question the propriety of the VA's decision to set-aside these line items since the decision to do so is consistent with the policies expressed in the regulation. Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the contracting agency in such matters. See Friedrich Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Co., B-212777, Sept. 6, 1983, 83-2 CPD Para. 308.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs