Complaint Against Determination of Ineligibility

A firm complained against the determination made by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) that it was not an eligible minority business enterprise (MBE) for the purposes of a subcontract award. Since the grant was funded in part by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), the complainant requested that the review of the MARTA determination be in accord with a GAO public notice. For prior MARTA projects, the complainant had been certified by MARTA as eligible to participate as an MBE. For this project, the complainant and another electrical contracting firm, acting in a joint venture, submitted a subcontract bid to one of the bidders. MARTA determined that this prime contractor submitted the low responsive bid, but it was not eligible for award unless it replaced the complainant because, in the view of MARTA, the complainant did not qualify as an MBE. Specifically, MARTA concluded that the complainant was not minority controlled. The prime contractor found an MBE acceptable to MARTA and replaced the complainant. MARTA made the award to the prime contractor. The UMTA regulations set forth eligibility standards which must be used by grantees in determining whether a firm is owned and controlled by minorities and, thus, whether the firm is eligible to be certified as an MBE. The regulations provide that a business aggrieved by an adverse grantee determination may appeal to the Department of Transportation (DOT). The protester's appeal was pending with DOT. The regulations also provide that the denial of an MBE certification by a grantee is final for that contract and other contracts then being let by the grantee and regulations permit MBE's and joint ventures to correct deficiencies in control only for future procurements. GAO reviews complaints against the award of contracts under grants to foster compliance with grant terms, agency regulations, and applicable statutory requirements. It is not the intent of GAO to interfere with the function and responsibility of grantor agencies in administering grants. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.