Protest challenging the agency’s decision not to issue a solicitation through SBA’s 8(a) program is dismissed, where the protester graduated from the 8(a) program and would not be eligible to bid on a new set-aside, and where the requirement could not be procured through its existing 8(a) contracts, nor was the agency required to issue further task orders under those contracts.
Signature Consulting Group LLC protested the terms of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services solicitation for program support services. Signature, a small business that recently graduated from the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program, argued that some of the anticipated work under the RFQ originates from a contract under the 8(a) program for which Signature is currently the prime contractor. The protester challenged the agency’s decision to remove this work from the 8(a) program.
The agency argued that Signature was not an interested party to challenge the decision because it had graduated from the 8(a) program and would not be eligible to bid. Signature acknowledged that it graduated from the 8(a) program, but argued that it retained its 8(a) status because it continues to hold two 8(a) multiple-award, IDIQ contracts under which it is eligible to receive task orders under the 8(a) program.
In response, the agency noted that Signature’s two 8(a) vehicles provided solely for IT services, and are therefore not suitable for the requirement. Therefore, the agency argued that even if the requirement was issued through the 8(a) program, it would not be within the scope of Signature’s contracts.
GAO agreed that Signature was not an interested party because it had graduated from the 8(a) program, even though it remains eligible to receive task orders under its current contracts. Further, Signature did not argue that the agency was required to procure the requirement through its IDIQs, even if the agency solicited the work through the 8(a) program. Though the protester disagreed with the agency’s conclusions, GAO found CMS’ reasonably considered whether the requirement could be acquired through Signature’s contracts and concluded that it could not.
GAO also rejected Signature’s allegation the agency acted in bad faith. Signature argued the agency was biased in favor of a large contractor to which it wanted to award the work. Signature argued the agency attempted to transition the final option year work of one of its contracts to the large contractor and that the agency subsequently issued the instant solicitation for the “same” work under the GSA schedule contract on an unrestricted basis, without SBA prior approval, without regard for the rule of two, and in an attempt to bundle the effort, in favor of the large contractor.
The agency explained that it did consider alternatives to the work to be performed during Signature’s final option year, due to concerns with its performance. The contracting officer attested that he did not solicit the large contractor to perform this work. Further, the work remained on Signature’s contract. With regard to the requirement at issue, GAO found the CO’s market research supported the decision to solicit the work through GSA’s professional services schedule. GAO found no credible evidence of bias or bad faith.
Signature Consulting Group LLC is represented by Jerry A. Miles and Lan Jin of Deale Services, LLC. The government is represented by Erin V. Podolny, Linda Santiago, and Douglas Kornreich, Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
