BNUMBER:  B-276960 
DATE:  May 20, 1997
TITLE: DLS Services, Inc., B-276960, May 20, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:DLS Services, Inc.

File:     B-276960

Date:May 20, 1997

William H. Carroll, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for the protester.
Thomas A. Darner, Esq., and Maria S. Kavouras, Esq., Environmental 
Protection Agency, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated 
in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

The General Accounting Office will not consider a protest challenging 
the substitution of one section 8(a) concern for another as the 
designee for a sole source contract award under the SBA's section 8(a) 
set-aside program.

DECISION

DLS Services, Inc., protests the substitution of Harombee Enterprises 
for DLS as the section 8(a) concern designated for a noncompetitive 
contract award under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 
8(a) program pursuant to solicitation No. PB-CI-97-10203, issued by 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for janitorial services at 
the agency's laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

We dismiss the protest.

The protester, the incumbent 8(a) contractor, contends that EPA 
improperly requested that SBA rescind its initial designation of DLS 
for award of the follow-on contract after EPA and DLS were unable to 
reach agreement on price during contract negotiations.

EPA explains that the impasse was reached after DLS failed to provide 
requested information justifying its price, specifically, information 
which substantiated why subcontracted work, direct labor costs, and 
other portions of its proposal were significantly higher than the 
costs under its previous contract.  Because DLS's previous contract 
had expired and DLS refused to provide further services by purchase 
order, EPA states than it was left with little choice but to ask SBA 
to designate another 8(a) concern for the contract.  SBA, which was 
involved in the negotiations, agreed to do so and withdrew its 
designation of DLS for the contract and designated Harombee instead.  
EPA then ended its negotiations with DLS, and, pending the negotiation 
of a long-term contract with Harombee, issued purchase order No. 
7A-0523-NAWW for the janitorial services to Harombee through the SBA. 

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994), 
authorizes SBA to enter into contracts with government agencies and to 
arrange for the performance of such contracts be letting subcontracts 
to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.  
This is a contracting approach which in general is not subject to the 
competitive and procedural requirements of the procurement regulations 
and the statutory provisions they implement.  Border Maintenance 
Serv., Inc.--Recon., B-252680.2, July 20, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  43 at 2.  
Because of the broad discretion afforded a contracting officer to let 
contracts under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act upon such terms 
and conditions as may be agreed upon by the procuring agency and the 
SBA, our review of actions under the section 8(a) program generally is 
limited to determining whether government officials have violated 
regulations or engaged in fraud or bad faith.  Id.

DLS does not contend that government officials acted fraudulently or 
in bad faith during the negotiations.  Rather, DLS asserts that in 
terminating negotiations with DLS, EPA failed to make a required 
determination that the price proposed by DLS was not a fair market 
price, and then, by seeking the substitution of another 8(a) concern 
for DLS, effectively circumvented the regulatory scheme devised to 
address price disagreements between the procuring agency and the 
designated 8(a) concern.  In this regard, the protester alleges 
violations of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  19.810(a)[1] and 
13 C.F.R.  sec.  124.311(c)(3) (1997),[2] which it asserts are designed to 
ensure that the inability of an 8(a) concern selected for a contract 
to reach agreement with the procuring agency on the price of the 
contract is a matter that is elevated to senior levels within SBA and 
the procuring agency.

However, as pointed out by EPA, the regulations cited by the protester 
are inapplicable to the situation at issue here because no competitive 
8(a) procurement for the solicited janitorial services is planned or 
occurring and there is no dispute between the procuring agency and SBA 
over the terms of the contract or the fair market price.  Rather, when 
negotiations with DLS failed, EPA requested that SBA designate another 
8(a) concern for negotiations for the sole source contract award, 
which SBA agreed to do.  The protester has not cited, nor are we aware 
of any legal prohibition against SBA, at the behest of the procuring 
agency, from substituting one designated 8(a) concern for another 
during contract negotiations.  In requesting that our Office either 
direct EPA to resume negotiations or instruct the agencies to resolve 
the price disagreement at higher administrative levels pursuant to the 
above-cited regulations, the protester is essentially asking us to 
arbitrate the section 8(a) sole source negotiations process, which is 
not our function.  Quality Support, Inc.--Recon., B-254635.3, Mar. 17, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  233 at 3.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. FAR 19.810(a) provides that the Administrator of SBA may refer 
certain matters--including "[t]he terms and conditions of a particular 
sole source acquisition to be awarded under the 8(a) Program" and 
"[t]he estimated fair market price"--for determination to the agency 
head if SBA and the contracting officer fail to agree on them.

2. 13 C.F.R.  sec.  124.311(c)(3) requires SBA's Associate Administrator 
for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development to deny 
a request to compete an 8(a) contract below the applicable dollar 
threshold where the requirement was previously offered on a 
noncompetitive basis if he or she concludes that the request is based 
on the inability of the contracting agency and the 8(a) concern 
selected to perform the contract to reach an agreement on price or 
some other material term and condition.