BNUMBER:  B-274694.2 
DATE:  March 12, 1997
TITLE: Phoenix Technical Services Corporation, B-274694.2, March 12,
1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Phoenix Technical Services Corporation

File:     B-274694.2

Date:March 12, 1997

Christopher M. Wawack, Esq., and Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Esq., Law 
Offices of Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Gregory Petkoff, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Glenn Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Procuring agency's decision to combine engineering support 
services for various electrical and avionics systems primarily on the 
C-130 and the C-141 aircraft is reasonable where agency has shown that 
the combination represents its minimum needs to obtain necessary 
systems integration. 

2.  Protest that procurement for various engineering support services 
should have been set aside for exclusive small business participation 
is denied where the record shows that the contracting officer did not 
abuse his discretion in determining that there was not a reasonable 
expectation of receiving proposals from at least two responsible small 
business offerors. 

DECISION

Phoenix Technical Services Corporation protests the terms of request 
for proposals (RFP) No. F09603-96-R-13361, issued by the Department of 
the Air Force for  avionics engineering services at Warner Robins Air 
Logistics Center (ALC).  The solicitation is for engineering support 
services for various electrical and avionics systems primarily on the 
C-130 and the C-141 aircraft, otherwise known as the 
electrical/avionics systems engineering support (EASES) program.  
Phoenix, a small business concern, challenges the agency's combining 
various engineering services into one requirement as unduly 
restrictive of competition and maintains that the procurement should 
be set aside for exclusive small business participation. 

We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND

The agency has previously procured electrical and avionics engineering 
support services for the C-130 and C-141 aircraft at the Warner Robins 
ALC by entering into sole source contracts under a basic ordering 
agreement with Arinc Research Corporation, which is not a small 
business.  The agency established the EASES program to provide the 
government with access to highly qualified engineers with the wide 
variety of expertise required to support electrical and avionics 
systems from more than one vendor.  The EASES solicitation at issue is 
structured to allow award of up to five indefinite delivery, 
indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts to firms who will then compete 
for individual task orders.  Once a firm is successful in obtaining an 
IDIQ contract, and then receives a task order for a specific project, 
that firm will organize and manage a project team to work with minimal 
government interaction.[1]  

The EASES program primarily involves engineering support for 
electrical or avionics modification programs which requires expertise 
in many different areas such as aircraft power systems design and 
analyses, aircraft structural modifications and analyses, and 
real-time software design and analyses.  In addition to the expertise 
required to support modification programs in general, specific 
programs often involve state-of-the-art designs in radar systems, 
aircraft instruments, and aircraft display systems.  Along with the 
support of modification programs, the EASES program includes 
requirements to support independent studies, analyses,
C-130 production aircraft, test programs, and special modification 
programs.[2] 

On June 30, 1995, the agency published a synopsis of the solicitation 
in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and received 50 inquiries in 
response.  In July, the Warner Robins Small and Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization (SADBU) Office initiated a market survey to assess the 
capability of the potential offerors to meet the government's 
requirements.  Respondents to the market survey were asked to identify 
and describe their experience in five broad categories of requirements 
that would be part of the EASES program and describe their experience 
in performing technical evaluations of the design and integration for 
the eight primary systems found on most aircraft.[3]  The agency 
received 21 responses to the market survey, including 2 from firms 
eligible for contract awards under section 8(a) of the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994), 3 from other small disadvantaged 
firms, 5 from small businesses, and 11 from large businesses.  The 
responses to the market survey were evaluated by engineers from the 
C-130 and the C-141 programs and a representative from the agency's 
SADBU Office.  Of the nine small business respondents to the market 
survey, four potential offerors were considered capable of performing 
more than 50 percent of the work; however, of these four, only 
one--TCS Design and Management Services--was identified as capable 
because it had experience in all of the basic areas.  

Based on the foregoing, the contracting officer determined that the 
RFP should not be issued as a total small business set-aside.  On 
December 8, the Small Business Administration (SBA) procurement 
representative at Warner Robins appealed the contracting officer's 
decision to the Head of Contracting Activity at Warner Robins, who 
denied the appeal and upheld the contracting officer's decision.  The 
SBA then appealed to the agency head and on May 22, 1996, the Under 
Secretary of the Air Force denied the appeal, but directed that the 
solicitation be issued as a partial small business set-aside in which 
50 percent of the value of the EASES program would be set aside for 
small business.  

The agency conducted a pre-solicitation conference on September 24.[4]  
On November 19, the agency issued the RFP as a partial small business 
set-aside, with a closing date of December 2, which was subsequently 
extended to December 3.  On December 2, Phoenix filed this protest in 
our Office arguing that the agency improperly "bundled" its various 
engineering support requirements in the EASES RFP and maintaining that 
the EASES requirements should be set aside exclusively for small 
businesses.  

The agency received 11 proposals by the proposal due date, 6 from 
large businesses, and 5 from small businesses.[5]  The rates offered 
by the lowest-priced, technically acceptable small business offerors 
are approximately 30 percent higher than the rates offered by the two 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable large businesses.  The agency 
has withheld making any awards under this solicitation pending the 
outcome of this protest. 

DISCUSSION

Combining The Contract Requirements

Phoenix argues that the agency has improperly "bundled" its 
requirements for engineering support services for the C-130 program 
and the C-141 program.  In short, Phoenix asserts that the agency 
should compete its requirements under several different solicitations 
to permit participation by companies with experience performing some, 
but not all, of the solicitation requirements.  

The agency responds that the aircraft systems supported by this 
procurement are totally integrated and, as a consequence, even when a 
contractor is given a project that involves only a single system, the 
contractor must complete the required modifications and then perform 
an assessment on how the modifications will affect the other aircraft 
systems.  Thus, each contractor must have expertise in all of the 
systems to be supported under this contract, and a contractor with 
knowledge and experience concerning only one system would pose an 
unacceptable technical risk which could be "potentially disastrous."  
Video Transcript (VT) 11:10. 

The Air Force further explains that in designing the EASES 
solicitation, it explored the options of individually competing each 
task as it arose, competing each task by system categories, (i.e., 
radar systems, navigation systems), or separately competing each 
function of the EASES requirement (i.e., test programs, software 
requirements), but concluded that such separate competitions were not 
realistically possible. The agency noted that in the past it procured 
support services for individual flight tests, but concluded that the 
quality of the services received were not uniformly up to the required 
professional standards.   The agency points out that there is a very 
short time period in which action must be taken after a necessary 
modification is identified and states that procuring the EASES 
requirements by the various divisions outlined above would shift the 
burden for total system integration from the contractors to the 
agency, requiring a coordination effort that would simply exceed the 
capability of its seven-person contracting office.  VT 11:19.  

The agency also states that it considered making only one award for 
all of the EASES requirements, thereby ensuring the integrity of the 
integrated systems and eliminating coordination problems.  The agency 
noted that it currently has essentially this situation in its contract 
with Arinc, and that the disadvantages associated with this approach 
are that it makes the agency too dependent on a single contractor and 
provides no competition or back-up source for the services.

In short, the agency determined that procuring the engineering support 
services from multiple contractors, each of which is capable of 
supporting all aircraft systems, will reduce costs while preserving 
the integrity of the integrated systems, potentially increase future 
competition, and provide the agency with alternative sources for these 
services.  The agency states that under the EASES requirement as it is 
currently formulated, a contractor will perform a project from start 
to finish,  including all system integration calculations, and the 
agency only has to coordinate these various projects among the EASES 
contractors.  

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(a)(1) (1994), generally requires that solicitations permit full 
and open competition, and contain restrictive provisions and 
conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the 
agency.  Since consolidated procurements combine separate, multiple 
requirements into one contract, they have the potential for 
restricting competition by excluding firms that can only furnish a 
portion of the requirement.  We review such solicitations to determine 
whether the approach is reasonably required to satisfy the agency's 
minimum needs.   National Customer Eng'g, 72 Comp. 
Gen. 132 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  225.  Because procurements involve unique 
situations, contracting officers must base their decisions whether to 
consolidate certain requirements on the individual facts.  The Sequoia 
Group, Inc., B-252016, May 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  405.  We have upheld 
the consolidation of requirements where agencies have provided a 
reasonable basis for using such an approach.  See Titan Dynamics 
Simulations, Inc., B-257559, Oct. 13, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  139 (agency 
properly combined requirements for pyrotechnic simulators with 
laser-based training devices); Resource Consultants, Inc., B-255053, 
Feb. 1, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  59 (agency properly combined several tasks to 
support a modification to a weapon trainer system). 

Here, for the reasons advanced by the agency above, we believe the 
agency reasonably combined its requirements for various engineering 
support services for the C-130 program, the C-141 programs and the 
339th test squadron.  In light of the integrated nature of the systems 
being supported and the agency's legitimate concerns in maintaining 
the integrity of these systems, we find reasonable the agency's 
determination that severing the contract requirements could negatively 
affect the safety of the aircraft.  In this instance, we also conclude 
that the agency reasonably considered the capability of its 
contracting office when it structured this RFP.  In appropriate 
circumstances, the agency's staffing resources can and should be 
properly considered in fashioning contracts that will satisfy the 
government's minimum requirements at the lowest reasonable cost 
considering the nature of the property or services procured.  The 
Sequoia Group, Inc., supra. 

Total Small Business Set-Aside 

Phoenix contends that this RFP should be exclusively set aside for 
small businesses because there are a number of small business concerns 
capable of performing this contract.  Phoenix also contends that the 
Air Force did not undertake a reasonable effort to ascertain the 
capabilities of the small businesses that expressed an interest in 
this solicitation.  Specifically, Phoenix argues that the agency 
should have asked proposed offerors in the market survey how they 
would "supplement their technical skills by learning or 
subcontracting."  

The agency notes that this is the first time it has attempted to 
competitively procure these various engineering support services; 
previously these services were obtained by entering into sole source 
contracts under a basic ordering agreement with one large business.  
The agency states that the market survey respondents were given credit 
for engineering experience on any of the eight primary aircraft 
systems, regardless of the type of aircraft involved.  VT 11:30.  
However, in order to be determined capable of performing the EASES 
requirements, the agency required that respondents have experience in 
all of these basic areas because of the  integrated nature of the 
C-130 and the C-141 systems to be supported.
     
Of the nine small business respondents to the market survey, only one 
potential offeror, TCS, was identified by evaluators as capable.  TCS 
was determined to have experience in 95 percent of the basic 
requirements and, more importantly, to have experience in all of the 
basic areas through its work on helicopters.   The other small 
business respondents to the market survey were found not to be capable 
of performing the EASES requirements because they each lacked 
experience in several of the basic areas.

The agency then explored whether the small businesses that were found 
incapable of performing the EASES requirements could become capable by 
subcontracting out the work in the areas in which they lacked 
experience.  The agency determined that a prime contractor could not 
become "capable" by subcontracting out basic areas in which it had no 
experience.  The agency concluded that the prime contractor must have 
some "basic competency" in an area before it could subcontract out the 
work in that area, so that the prime contractor would know the steps 
that the subcontractor must perform, the level of general knowledge 
and level of detail required, and have an understanding of what the 
subcontractor must produce as a result of the effort.  VT 12:22.  

Therefore, after reviewing the market survey responses the contracting 
officer determined not to set this RFP aside exclusively for small 
businesses because there was only one responsible small business.    

Thereafter, the agency received proposals on the EASES RFP and found 
that the rates offered by the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 
small business offerors are approximately 30 percent more than the 
rates offered by the two lowest-priced, technically acceptable large 
businesses.[6]  The contracting officer states that the rates proposed 
by small businesses are unreasonably high and, therefore, had the 
solicitation been set aside for small businesses, the set aside would 
have been withdrawn.[7]  

A procurement must be set aside for exclusive small business 
participation when there is a reasonable expectation of receiving 
offerors from at least two responsible small business concerns and 
award will be made at a fair market price.  FAR  sec.  19.502-2(b) (FAC 
90-43).  A contracting officer must make reasonable efforts to 
ascertain whether it is likely that offers will be received from at 
least two small businesses with the capabilities to perform the work.  
Espey Mfg. & Elecs. Corp.,  B-254738.3, Mar. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  180.  
An agency's determination concerning whether to set a particular 
procurement aside basically involves a business decision within the 
broad discretion of contracting officials, and our review generally is 
limited to ascertaining whether those officials have abused that 
discretion.        FKW Inc., B-249189, Oct. 22, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  270.  

The record establishes that the contracting officer did not abuse his 
discretion in issuing the RFP as a partial set-aside, rather than as a 
total small business set-aside.  In light of the fact that the basic 
systems on the C-130 and the C-141 are completely  integrated, the 
agency reasonably required each offeror to have "basic competency" in 
each of the key areas.  The information available to the contracting 
officer indicated that only one small business met that requirement; 
it therefore provided a reasonable basis for the decision not to set 
aside the entire procurement.[8]    

The protest is denied.  

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The statement of work (SOW) states that the project team "shall be 
capable of performing the project without government interaction 
except for:  coordination of related activities; and, approval of 
plans, procedures, reports and documents generated by the project 
team."  

2. Support for the 339th test squadron, which performs test flights at 
the conclusion of repairs or modifications, was also included in the 
EASES solicitation.    

3. The eight primary aircraft systems are communications systems, 
navigation systems, radar systems, flight director/autopilot systems, 
aircraft instruments and display systems, cockpit management systems, 
aircraft lighting systems, and aircraft power systems. 

4. Phoenix initially protested the agency's decision not to issue the 
solicitation as a total small business set-aside before the 
solicitation was issued.  This protest was dismissed by our Office as 
premature.  

5. Phoenix did not submit a proposal in response to this solicitation.

6. The contracting officer determined that rates proposed by small 
businesses are higher because they are paying higher rates for their 
proposed subcontractors.  VT 13:56.  

7. A contracting officer is authorized to withdraw a set-aside before 
award based upon a determination that award to a small business 
concern would be detrimental to the public interest, because, for 
example, the award would be made at more than a fair market price.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  19.506.  

8. The contracting officer's determination that the "rule of two" did 
not obtain here was confirmed by the proposals received in response to 
this solicitation as the  agency determined that it cannot make award 
to any of the small business offerors at a reasonable price.  Further, 
because the information obtained as a result of the evaluation of 
proposals provides a basis for the withdrawal of the partial 
set-aside, we fail to see how Phoenix was prejudiced by the 
contracting officer's determination not to conduct the procurement as 
a total small business set-aside.