Dating in the army regulation

Significantly, Starlight concedes that two SDVOSB firms have experience servicing C-5 aircraft. To the extent that the protester contends that these SDVOSB firms may have limited experience, we find that the protester has not persuasively rebutted the agencys argument that the services being procured are not complex, do not involve specialized tasks, or otherwise require highly skilled labor, unique qualifications, or certifications. The VA responds that, pursuant to the specific authority accorded the agency in 38 U. The VA posted information concerning the task order on the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) website the same day. As noted above, the agency conducted market research from which it determined that there were a number of SDVOSBs that appeared capable and interested in performing these requirements. If it does, the matter ends there, for the unambiguous intent of Congress must be given effect.

Thus, she was concerned that since the only two SDVOSBs that were identified as being reasonably likely to submit quotations were under common ownership, there was not adequate price competition, and, therefore, there was not a reasonable expectation that award could be made at a fair and reasonable price. In response, VA commented that DLA adhered to the market research requirements of the VAAR by reviewing the VIP database to identify whether there were two SDVOSBs or VOSBs capable of meeting the requirement that were likely to submit a quotation at a fair and reasonable price.[3] VA Comments at 1. The agency then expanded its search to the nearby states of Oregon, Idaho, and California, and found only one SDVOSB firm (located in California) under the relevant NAICS code that performs valet parking services. Consequently, we consider these protest grounds to be abandoned. 230 at 5 n.3; Strategic Res., Inc., B-287398, B-287398.2, June 18, 2001, 2001 CPD para. (Kingdomware Technologies, Inc., B-405533.2, November 10, 2011) (pdf) The protester contends that the sole-source awards are improper because the VA failed to consider other qualified SDVOSBs for award. The protester argues that the VA should have set aside these procurements for SDVOSBs--and not have awarded sole-source contracts--because two or more SDVOSBs would have submitted offers for the work. Starlight Corp., Inc., supra; Mountain West Helicopters, LLC; Trans Aero, Ltd., B‑408150, B‑408150.2, July 1, 2013, 2013 CPD 152 at 3. Here, as explained below, Walker does not show that the VA unreasonably determined that it would receive offers from two or more SDVOSB firms at fair and reasonable prices. Some of the firms identified in those searches were found to be unable to provide the required equipment. Walker has not provided a reasonable basis on which to question the agencys assertion that competition between these two SDVOSB firms will not result in award being made at a reasonable price. The nonmanufacturer rule provides that the offer of a nonmanufacturer small business concern can be considered, provided, among other things, that the small business concern represents that it will supply the product of a domestic small business manufacturer or processor, or that a waiver of this requirement is granted by the SBA. Commonwealth Home Health Care, Inc., B‑400163, July 24, 2008, 2008 CPD 140 at 3. Because a decision whether to set aside a procurement is a matter of business judgment within the contracting officers discretion, our review generally is limited to ascertaining whether that official abused his or her discretion. 22, 2008, 2008 CPD 232 at 3; Viro Med Labs., B‑298931, Dec. The VA asserts that the statute reflects the intent of Congress to give the VA as much flexibility as possible in procuring prosthetic appliances, which are uniquely sensitive and personal to the needs of the individual veteran. For the same reason, we also find no merit to the protesters contention that the VA violated VA Acquisition Regulation 806.302-5 (directing the contracting officer to cite 38 U. (Charlie Mike Prosthetics; Half Milers Rule, LLC, B-409389, B-409389.2: Mar 10, 2014) (pdf)Kingdomware Technologies, of Waldorf, Maryland, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), requests reconsideration of our decision in Kingdomware Technologies, B-407232, Sept. We will not question an agency's set aside determination where the record shows that the evidence before the contracting officer was adequate to support the reasonableness of the conclusion that small business competition reasonably could be expected. Further, in making set-aside decisions, agencies need not make actual determinations of responsibility or decisions tantamount to determinations of responsibility; rather, they need only make an informed business judgment that there is a reasonable expectation of receiving acceptably priced offers from small business concerns that are capable of performing the contract. The agencys market research included a review of the prior acquisition history and searches of the VA Western States Consortium blanket purchase agreement website, the National Acquisition Center contract catalog, and the General Services Administrations website. In addition, the agency posted a sources sought notice, conducted a search on Vetbiz.gov, and emailed ninety-one vendors found on with information about the procurement. Walker asserts that the agencys market research failed to consider whether an SDVOSB concern would meet the limitation on subcontracting rule and whether an SDVOSB nonmanufacturer would be providing the product of an SDVOSB concern. Here, the agency incorporated by reference FAR clause 52.219-27, Notice of Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set Aside, and assigned NAICS code 334510, Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, to the RFQ. In making set-aside decisions, agencies need not make actual determinations of responsibility or decisions tantamount to determinations of responsibility; rather, they need only make an informed business judgment that there is a reasonable expectation of receiving acceptably priced offers from small business concerns that are capable of performing the contract. 20, 2006, 2007 CPD 4 at 3-4; Information Ventures, Inc., B‑279924, Aug. We will not question an agencys small business determination where the record shows that the evidence before the contracting officer was adequate to support the reasonableness of the conclusion that small business competition reasonably could be expected. Here, the agencys set-aside determination is unobjectionable. The VA states that, moreover, while this specific authority exempts this procurement from any set-aside requirements, the VAs decision not to set-aside the procurement for SDVOSBs was also supported by the agencys conclusion that it did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving fair market offers from at least two SDVOSBs. 17, 2012, in which we dismissed a protest challenging the award of task order No. With respect to Crosstown's argument that the incumbent contract is priced below the cost of performance (which of course required Crosstown to make assumptions about the manner in which the incumbent is performing), an agency is not prohibited from entering into a contract that is below the cost of performance. Accordingly, Crosstown has not provided a basis for our Office to conclude that the IGCE was defective, or that the contracting officer acted unreasonably in using the IGCE to assess whether an SDVOSB (or VOSB) set-aside would reasonably result in fair and reasonable prices. B-415818: Mar 27, 2018) Generally, the decision whether to set aside a procurement for SDVOSB concerns is a business judgment within the contracting officers discretion, which we will not disturb absent a showing that it was unreasonable. The protesters primary complaint is that the agency unreasonably limited its market research to Minnesota, instead of considering SDVOSB couriers nationwide. Mountain West Helicopters, LLC; Trans Aero, Ltd., B-408150, B-408150.2, July 1, 2013, 2013 CPD 152 at 3. 8123 allows the agency to procure prosthetic appliances and services without considering whether to set aside the procurements for SDVOSBs. As stated above, the VA noted from its experience procuring these goods and services that it did not receive offers from any SDVOSBs over the past 10 years. We also noted that the VA's regulations implementing the 2006 VA Act provide in relevant part: (a) . Aero Sage LLC, B-414314, B‑414314.2, May 5, 2017, 2017 CPD __ at 6; Starlight Corp., Inc., B-410471.2, Dec. No particular method of assessing the availability of capable small businesses is required; rather, the assessment must be based on sufficient facts so as to establish its reasonableness. The VA, however, received responses from two interested SDVOSB concerns that provided capability statements and price estimates, which the agency deemed to be fair and reasonable. During this protest, the agency provided the protester with the names of the two firms identified in the agencys market research. The decision whether to set aside a procurement may be based on an analysis of factors such as the prior procurement history, the recommendations of appropriate small business specialists, and market surveys that include responses to sources sought announcements. Although the protesters characterize the VAs citation to this authority as an after-the-fact justification of its improper procurement planning, see Comments at 3, the contemporaneous record contains numerous citations to this authority. 1, at 5; AR, Tab 2, Market Research Report, at 4; AR, Tab 4, Pre‑solicitation Notice, at 2. Although the protesters disagree with the VAs judgment in this regard, they have not shown it to be unreasonable, or to violate applicable procurement laws or regulations.

Leave a Reply