Protest of Contract Award Under Architect and Engineering Set-Aside

An engineering company protested the award of a contract which was advertised as an 8(a) set-aside for architect and engineering services. The protester contended that the general criteria as established by the Small Business Act, which was used to establish eligibility for participation in the set-aside, were inconsistent with the specific criteria in the Brooks Bill, and therefore the Small Business Administration (SBA) could not lawfully authorize the set-aside. SBA and the contracting agency contended that SBA has independent authority to contract with Federal agencies and to subcontract with disadvantaged business concerns, and that the Brooks Bill does not apply to contracts negotiated pursuant to SBA authority. GAO reviewed the set-aside determination, since the question was whether relevant rules and regulations were followed by the agencies involved. While the SBA has the authority to insulate disadvantaged participants from the constraints of price competition with established firms, the Brooks Bill deviates from traditional procurement methods in that competence, not price, is the basic selection criterion. GAO did not equate economic or social disadvantage with the lack of professional competence, and therefore found no inconsistency between the Brooks Bill selection procedures and the SBA program. It was held therefore, that although architect and engineering contracts are governed by provisions of the Brooks Bill, the zone of competition may be legally limited by SBA to enhance opportunities for smaller firms to obtain Government contracts. Accordingly, the protest was denied.