B-173504: Sep 12, 1972

SINCE THERE WAS ONLY ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUPPLIED THAT INTERPRETATION BEFORE BID OPENING AS REQUESTED BY PROTESTANT. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IFB WAS AMBIGUOUS. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION NOT TO SET ASIDE A PROCUREMENT FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION. THE CONTRACTING...

B-173504: Nov 26, 1971

IS A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRACT AWARD UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY FORT LEE. NOTWITHSTANDING PROTESTANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE SBA DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. SHRIVER & KAMPELMAN: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR PROTEST ON BEHALF OF PLANT ENGINEERING. IS A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR REFUSE COLL...

B-173504: Dec 29, 1971

THE SBA'S METHOD OF DETERMINING THE TIME PERIODS FOR WHICH DYNAMIC'S AVERAGE ANNUAL RECEIPTS ARE TO BE COMPUTED IS SUSTAINED SINCE BY LAW A BIDDER IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE CERTIFIED TO BEING A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN AT THE TIME OF THE BID OPENING AND AWARD. SHRIVER & KAMPELMAN: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THIS OFFICE TO QUESTIO...