Protest alleging that awardee made a misrepresentation concerning its status as a participant in the 8(a) Business Development Program is dismissed in part and denied in part. The protester argued that the awardee had misrepresented that it had an office in San Diego as required by the solicitation. GAO noted that this issue related to the awardee’s status as an 8(a) business. Matters concerning a business’s compliance with 8(a) regulations are within the purview of the SBA. The SBA had already determined that the awardee was a bona fide 8(a) business with a San Diego office at the time its submitted its proposal. GAO declined to question that determination. The protester also challenged the awardee's evaluation under a safety factor, but GAO found the argument meritless.
The Navy issued a solicitation for paving projects at bases in Southern California. The solicitation was set aside for participants in the SBA’s 8(a) Small Business Development program. The 8(a) businesses had to be located within the area served by SBA’s San Diego district office.
DLF-CPC JV, LLC and VJLM JV, LLC submitted proposals. The Navy determined that VJLM’s proposal represented the best value and awarded the company the contract. DLF protested.
DLF asserted that one of the partners in VLJM had misrepresented to the agency that it maintained a bona fide place of business in the San Diego area. The lease on the partner’s San Diego office had ended on October 25, 2019. The partner did not lease new space until November 1. But VLJM had submitted it revised price quote on October 31. DLF maintained that VLJM could not properly assert that its partner had a bona fide place of business in San Diego on October 31.
GAO noted that it will not review competitive 8(a) procurements for compliance with SBA regulations because those are matters that are within the purview of the SBA. Whether the SBA erred in its eligibility determination is a matter solely for the SBA. Here, the SBA had reviewed DLF’s allegations and determined that VJLM had a bona fide place of business at the time it submitted its final quote. Absent bad faith, which there was no evidence of, GAO will not review a substantive determination of the SBA.
DLF also argued that the Navy’s evaluation under the solicitation’s safety factor was flawed. The solicitation required offeror to submit safety data for the previous three years. One of the VLJM partners had submitted data for the previous three years, but the other partner only submitted data for one year. DLF argued that the Navy should have assigned VLJM a marginal rating under the safety factor due to the missing information.
GAO found this argument lacked merit. The solicitation permitted offerors who did not submit data to provide an explanation as why it was missing. Here, VLJM had explained that one of the partners did not have data for all three years because it was a new company. The Navy reasonably accepted this explanation. GAO found no reason to question it.
DLS is represented by David S. Demian of Finch, Thornton & Baird LLP. The intervenor, VLJM, is represented by William M. Jack and Amba M. Datta of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. The agency is represented by Deana Jaeger and Katherine Arutunian of the Navy. GAO attorneys Stephanie B. Magnell and Evan C. Williams participated in the preparation of the decision.