Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotation is denied, where the procurement was set aside entirely for 8(a)-eligible firms and the protester had graduated from the program. While 8(a) participants are eligible to retain their status for the life of an underlying IDIQ, the contract at issue had not been set aside for 8(a) firms and therefore the rule did not apply.
MIRACORP Inc. protested the Department of Energy’s award of a task order for administrative support services to RiVidium Inc., challenging the evaluation of quotations.
DOE issued the solicitation as a set-aside for participants in SBA’s 8(a) business development program who were also holders of a Federal Supply Schedule Professional Services Schedule contract. Incumbent MIRACORP submitted a quotation. While MIRACORP held a PSS contract, it had graduated from the 8(a) program some 18 months prior to the solicitation date. After the award decision was announced, MIRACORP filed this protest.
DOE argued the protester is not an interested party because the solicitation was set aside for 8(a) participants and therefore MIRACORP was ineligible for award. MIRACORP acknowledged these facts, but argued that it retained its status as an 8(a) participant because it was an 8(a) firm at the time it was initially awarded its PSS contract.
GAO invited SBA to comment. According to SBA, because the underlying PSS contract was not initially set aside for 8(a) competition, any order under that contract that is competed exclusively among 8(a) concerns, only can be awarded to a firm that SBA has verified as being an eligible 8(a) concern. SBA explained that to be an eligible 8(a) concern, the firm must be a current 8(a) participant as of the date specified for receipt of offers contained in the request for quotations for the order. SBA also noted the solicitation stated that offers would be accepted only from participants who met the criteria at the time of the submission of their quotation.
Accordingly, SBA maintained that because MIRACORP was not an 8(a) participant on the date specified in the RFQ for receipt of quotations, the protester was not eligible to receive the order, and therefore, not an interested party. GAO agreed with this interpretation of the program’s regulations and dismissed the protest. While the protester correctly argued that an offeror retains its size status for the life of an underlying contract, the PSS contract at issue was not set aside exclusively for 8(a) firms.
MIRACORP Inc. is represented by Thomas K. David, Kenneth Brody, and Katherine David of David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP. RiVidium Inc. is represented by James Y. Boland and Spencer P. Williams of Venable LLP. The government is represented by John L. Bowles and Stephanie B. Young, Department of Energy, and Sam Le, Small Business Administration. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
