BNUMBER:  B-278457 
DATE:  January 30, 1998
TITLE: American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., B-278457,
January 30, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc.

File:     B-278457

Date:January 30, 1998

Gary D. Jones, Esq., Drubner, Hartley, O'Connor & Mengacci, L.L.C., 
for the protester.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., and Philip 
Kauffman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Agency's determinations to set aside procurements for chair car 
services for exclusive small business participation are reasonable 
where they are based on knowledge of previous participation in a 
procurement for the same services by at least two small business 
concerns who had submitted bids at fair market prices.

DECISION

American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. protests request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. 689-37-98, and RFQ No. 689-2-98, issued by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for chair car services at the VA 
Medical Center, West Haven, Connecticut.  American Medical protests 
the issuance of the RFQs as small business set-asides.

We deny the protest.

American Medical, a large business concern, is the incumbent 
contractor for these services and, for approximately the last year, 
has been performing on an interim, noncompetitive basis while the 
agency addressed protests of the solicitation process.  During that 
time, VA issued an invitation for bids (IFB).  Three of the six bids 
received were from small business concerns.  The contracting officer 
considered the prices from all three of these small business concerns 
to be very competitive with prices bid by the large business concerns.  
That solicitation was eventually canceled during the pendency of a 
protest by American Medical.

On September 19, 1997, VA published in the Commerce Business Daily 
(CBD) an announcement of the issuance of RFQ No. 689-37-98, requesting 
quotes for providing chair car services for 2 months.  The value of 
the services was estimated to be within the range of $2,500 to 
$100,000 and, considering the previous IFB where three bids from small 
business concerns were submitted at fair market prices, the 
contracting officer determined that competition under the RFQ was 
required to be restricted to small business concerns under Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  19.502-2(a).  The same day of the CBD 
publication, four small business concerns inquired about the terms of 
the RFQ and expressed interest in submitting quotes; three of these 
concerns were the same small business concerns that had submitted bids 
under the canceled IFB.  American Medical, a large business, was not 
invited to submit a quote for these services.  Subsequently, two of 
these concerns submitted quotes and award was made to Connecticut 
Handivan, Inc. on September 29.

RFQ No. 689-2-98, issued on October 16, requested quotes to provide 
the services for 1 year with 4 option years.  The value of this RFQ 
was estimated to be more than $100,000 and competition was restricted 
to small business concerns pursuant to FAR  sec.  19.502-2(b) because, 
based on the three bids received from small business concerns under 
the canceled IFB, the contracting officer determined that she was 
likely to receive at least two quotes from responsible small business 
concerns and to make award at a fair market price.  

On September 30, American Medical was notified of the award to 
Connecticut Handivan under the 2-month RFQ.  On October 10, it faxed a 
protest to the contracting officer.  On October 16, American Medical 
received notice that its protest was denied.  On October 23, it 
protested the two RFQs to our Office.

American Medical primarily alleges that the RFQs should not have been 
set aside for exclusive small business participation because 
Connecticut Handivan is not a small business concern and thus the 
contracting officer did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving 
quotes from at least two responsible small business concerns.  
American Medical also alleges that the contracting officer has acted 
improperly to favor Connecticut Handivan under the protested RFQs.

FAR  sec.  19.502-2 generally requires that an acquisition be set aside 
exclusively for small business participation where there is a 
reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two 
responsible small business concerns and that an award will be made at 
a fair market price.  McBer and Co., B-225453, Feb. 11, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  
151 at 1; Kimberly-Clark Corp., B-221028, Feb. 11, 1986, 86-1 CPD  para.  
155 at 4.  A determination that a particular procurement is to be set 
aside for small business participation is basically a business 
judgment within the broad discretion by the contracting officer.  
McBer and Co., supra; Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra.  In making this 
determination, the contracting officer need not make determinations 
tantamount to affirmative determinations of responsibility, but rather 
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.  
McBer and Co., supra, at 2; Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra, at 5-6.  We 
will not question the set-aside decision of the contracting officer in 
the absence of a clear showing of abuse of the discretion permitted 
her.  McBer and Co., supra, at 1; Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra, at 4.

Here, the record does not evidence an abuse of discretion.  Even 
without Connecticut Handivan, there remain two other small business 
concerns that submitted competitively priced bids under the earlier 
solicitation.  These same two bidders continued to express interest in 
competing for the services during the approximate time when both of 
these RFQs were issued.  In sum, the contracting officer properly 
considered the procurement history with two or possibly three 
apparently responsible bidders who submitted bids at fair market 
prices as a basis to set aside these RFQs for small business 
participation.  See Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra, at 5-6.  

To the extent American Medical alleges that "some or all" of these 
small business concerns may not be capable of performing the 
contracts, the allegations as they relate to the two small business 
concerns other than Connecticut Handivan are general and unsupported; 
these allegations are insufficient to show that the contracting 
officer's determination based on procurement history was unreasonable.  
See APAC-Tennessee, Inc., B-226365, B-227049, Apr. 27, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  
438 at 2.

To the extent American Medical challenges Connecticut Handivan's 
participation under these RFQs, or the alleged agency actions favoring 
that firm in these procurements, American Medical is not an interested 
party to protest these issues.  Only an interested party may file a 
protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(a) (1997); Fermont Div., Dynamics Corp. of 
Am., B-201062, Mar. 30, 1981, 81-1 CPD  para.  235 at 3.  American Medical 
is an interested party only with respect to the issue of the 
legitimacy of the small business set-aside; since the protester is a 
large business and we have found that the set-asides here are valid, 
American Medical is not eligible for contract award under the 
protested RFQs and may not protest to our Office other aspects of 
these procurements.  Fermont Div., Dynamics Corp. of Am., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States