BNUMBER: B-281352; B-281353
DATE: January 28, 1999
TITLE: The Urban Group, Inc.; McSwain and Associates, Inc., B-
281352; B-281353, January 28, 1999
**********************************************************************
Matter of:The Urban Group, Inc.; McSwain and Associates, Inc.
File: B-281352; B-281353
Date:January 28, 1999
Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., and Jeffrey I. Gdanski, Esq., for the
protesters.
David R. Kohler, Esq., and Audrey H. Liebross, Esq., for the Small
Business Administration.
Michael J. Farley, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development,
for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of this
decision.
DIGEST
1. Issuance of a section 8(a) set-aside solicitation, which includes
work previously performed by small businesses as well as new work,
without assessing the adverse impact of the set-aside on small
business concerns, is unobjectionable where no adverse impact
assessment is required under applicable Small Business Administration
(SBA) regulations because the SBA, in interpreting its regulations,
reasonably determined that the overall solicitation is radically
different from the previously performed work and thus represents new
work.
2. A solicitation provision stating that a section 8(a) set-aside
will become a small business set-aside if fewer than two acceptable
offers from 8(a) firms are received is not contrary to statute or
regulation, or unfair to small businesses.
3. Absent clear judicial precedent, General Accounting Office will
not consider protest alleging that agency did not have
constitutionally sufficient basis for creating a section 8(a)
set-aside.
4. Agency's decision to consolidate marketing requirements
(previously performed largely in-house) with existing property
management contract requirements into larger contracts for both
management and marketing services in multiple states is not
objectionable under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 631(j)(3),
644(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998), where the resulting benefits are
"measurably substantial" and support a determination that the bundling
is necessary and justified, and the protester has not identified a
reasonable alternative that would provide similar benefits.
DECISION
The Urban Group, Inc. and McSwain and Associates, Inc. protest request
for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21230, issued by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contemplating up to 16 separate
contracts for management and marketing (M&M) services for single
family properties in 16 designated areas of the United States. Urban
challenges the set-aside for section 8(a) concerns in the area of
Florida and Puerto Rico. McSwain challenges the bundling of Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina into one
area.
We deny the protests.
HUD insures hundreds of thousands of Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) mortgages. Where defaulted mortgages result in foreclosure by
the lender and payment of insurance claims by HUD to the lender, HUD
gains title to thousands of properties throughout the country. HUD
manages these properties by providing maintenance and repairs, and
ultimately sells the properties in order to recoup funds paid on
insurance claims. The Real Estate Owned Branch (REO) of HUD's Office
of Housing is responsible for managing and marketing these properties.
Agency Report on Urban Protest (ARU) at 2; Agency Report on McSwain
Protest (ARM) at 2.
Prior to the issuance of this RFP for M&M services, HUD generally
contracted for the property management services separately, and the
REO staff performed the marketing services in-house with some
assistance from advertising contractors. The most recent management
contracts were the Real Estate Asset Management (REAM) services
contracts, which were usually performed by small business concerns
covering small geographic areas and administered by REO staff in 81
HUD field offices. REAM contractors received a fixed-fee for managing
the properties, and subcontracted for maintenance and repairs, the
cost of which was directly paid by HUD. ARU at 2-3; ARM at 2-3.
Administration of the REAM contracts and marketing properties has been
burdensome for HUD. Also, an audit of the REAM contract program,
conducted by the General Accounting Office in response to
congressional inquiries regarding reports or poor contract
administration, found that HUD's oversight of these contracts was
inadequate. Single-Family Housing: Improvements Needed in HUD's
Oversight of Property Management Contractors (GAO/RCED-98-65, Mar.
1998). This report concluded that this inadequacy may have resulted
in a decrease in the marketability of properties, as well as a
decrease in the value of surrounding homes and a threat to the health
and safety of neighbors and potential buyers, while also increasing
the holding costs of these properties for the government. HUD
essentially concurs with the conclusions of this report. In addition,
HUD is in the process of reducing staff from a 1996 level of 10,500
employees to a 2002 level of 7,500 employees. This will reduce the
REO staff from 500 in 1997 to 88 by the end of 1999. The reduced REO
staff will transfer from the 81 field offices to 4 regional Home
Ownership Centers (HOC).[1] Consequently, HUD needed a more efficient
and less costly method for managing and marketing its properties. ARU
at 3-4; ARM at 3-4.
In order to decrease the burden of contract oversight and to improve
the marketing of the properties, HUD has developed a new approach to
its property management and marketing responsibilities, which entails
issuing far fewer contracts covering much larger geographic areas, and
combining the management and marketing requirements under one
contract. Three pilot programs successfully tested this approach.
Under these pilot programs, contractors were reimbursed for repairs,
but otherwise received a percentage of the price at which each
property was sold. These pilot programs met or exceeded the sales
goals established by HUD and reduced the average time a property was
held by HUD. However, the risk of the cost of repairs and the
associated oversight burden still existed for HUD. ARU at 4-5; ARM at
4-5.
To further reduce costs and administrative burden, the final M&M
approach also placed responsibility for performing and paying for
repairs with the contractor. The resulting solicitation provided
financial incentives for the contractor to efficiently maintain,
repair and market properties in a manner that would promote the
highest possible selling price for each property by compensating the
contractor based on a percentage of the sales price. ARU at 5; ARM at
5.
Prior to issuing the current M&M RFP, the agency issued four regional
M&M solicitations, one for each HOC. None of these solicitations
included small business or section 8(a) set-asides. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) objected to these solicitations,
recommending that the requirements be subdivided and partially set
aside for small business concerns. The regional solicitations were
canceled and replaced with the current M&M RFP, which incorporated the
SBA's recommendations. ARU at 6-7; ARM at 6-7.
The M&M RFP, issued on August 17, 1998, identified four service
regions corresponding to the four HOCs in Philadelphia, Atlanta,
Denver and Santa Ana. Each HOC is responsible for 3 to 6 areas for a
total of 16 geographic areas. The Atlanta HOC is divided into three
areas. Area 2 of the Atlanta HOC, the subject of McSwain's protest,
consists of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and South
Carolina; Area 3, the subject of Urban's protest, consists of Florida
and Puerto Rico. RFP sec. B.II.
The RFP contemplated the award of up to 16 fixed-price,
indefinite-quantity contracts, covering the 16 areas, for 1 year with
4 option years. RFP cover letter at 1, sec. B, M.VI. Offerors could
submit proposals for as many areas as they chose, with a minimum of
one entire area. RFP sec. M.IV(a).
Contract price was to be determined primarily by applying the
offeror's proposed fixed-price factor to the sale or rental price of
each property.[2] RFP sec. B.III-IV. Except for a limited number of
cost-reimbursable services (specified at sec. C-4.III) the proposed price
factors determined the total compensation due for contract
performance. RFP sec. B.III-IV.
The RFP stated the following set-aside procedures at section M.IV:
(c)(1)In accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)]
Subpart 19.8, any award for . . . Area 3 of the Atlanta HOC
. . . resulting from this solicitation, will be made on a
competitive basis to eligible Section 8(a) business
concerns, provided that a minimum of two (2) competitive
(technical and cost) offers are received from eligible
Section 8(a) concerns.
(2)If a minimum of two (2) offers from eligible Section 8(a)
concerns are not received, the award for the area(s)
specified in (c)(1) above will be made to a small business .
. . in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.5, provided that a
minimum of two competitive (technical and cost) offers are
received from qualified small business concerns.
(3)If a minimum of two (2) offers from qualified small
business concerns are not received, the award for the
area(s) specified in (c)(1) above will be made on the basis
of full and open competition from among all responsible
business concerns submitting offers.
A total of 6 areas were set aside in this manner. The remaining 10
areas had no restrictions on competition. RFP sec. M.IV. The above
set-aside scheme was suggested, and the set-aside areas were selected,
by the SBA, and HUD accepted the SBA's recommendations. ARU at 7; ARM
at 7.
Proposals were due on October 20. RFP Amendment 0001, at 1. Urban
and McSwain protested prior to the time set for closing.
THE URBAN PROTEST
Urban protests that the agencies failed to determine if any incumbent
small business REAM contractor would be adversely affected by the
decision to solicit Area 3 of the Atlanta HOC as a section 8(a)
set-aside. Urban Protest at 3-5; Urban Comments at 5-8.
Because the Small Business Act affords the SBA and contracting
agencies broad discretion in selecting procurements for the section
8(a) program, we will review challenges to decisions to procure
requirements under section 8(a) only to ensure that agency officials
have not acted in bad faith, and that applicable regulations have been
followed. John Blood, B-280318, B-280319, Aug. 31, 1998, 98-2 CPD para.
58 at 2; American Consulting Servs., Inc., B-276149.2, B-276537.2,
July 31, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 37 at 9. Since it is not alleged here that
either HUD or the SBA acted in bad faith, nor does the record so
indicate, our review of Urban's protest turns to the applicable
regulations.
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes the SBA to contract
with government agencies and to arrange for performance of such
contracts by awarding subcontracts to socially and economically
disadvantaged small business concerns. 15 U.S.C. sec. 637(a) (1994).
The implementing regulations for the section 8(a) program provide that
the "SBA will not accept a procurement for award as an 8(a) contract"
which was not previously in the 8(a) program, where the acceptance of
the procurement would have an adverse impact on an individual small
business, a group of small businesses located in a specific
geographical location, or other small business programs. Section
124.504(c), 63 Fed. Reg. 35756, 35757 (June 30, 1998) (to be codified
at 13 C.F.R. sec. 124.504(c)). An adverse impact is presumed to exist
where a small business has been performing the requirement and the
requirement represents 25 percent or more of the small business's
gross sales. Id. at sec. 124.504(c)(1)(i)(C). However, if the
requirement being procured is a "new" requirement, i.e., one which has
not been previously procured by the procuring activity, then the
adverse impact rule does not apply, with one exception. Id. at
124.504(c)(1)(ii). That exception to the adverse impact rule states:
In determining whether the acceptance of a requirement would have
an adverse impact on a group of small businesses, SBA will
consider the effects of combining or consolidating various
requirements being performed by two or more small business
concerns into a single contract which would be considered a "new"
requirement as compared to any of the previous smaller
requirements. SBA may find adverse impact to exist if one of the
existing small business contractors meets the presumption set
forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
Id. at sec. 124.504(c)(2).
HUD states that this is a new requirement because it has not
previously procured the marketing services and certain other
requirements encompassed by this RFP, and thus the adverse impact rule
does not apply. ARU at 16-17. The SBA agrees. SBA Report at 13.
The SBA states that the above-quoted exception to the adverse impact
rule is not applicable where, as here, the consolidation of old
requirements performed by small businesses, together with the addition
of new requirements not previously procured, creates a "radically"
different work requirement from that of the old requirements. SBA
Report at 13. The SBA states that, unlike the REAM contracts:
The M&M contractor will not only take responsibility for deciding
what repairs to perform on a specific property, but they will
also market the properties and obtain much of their remuneration
from the sale proceeds.
Id. The SBA thus considers the nature of the M&M contracts to "differ
radically" from that of the REAM contracts, and states that the M&M
RFP can therefore be set aside for section 8(a) concerns without
consideration of adverse impact on small business concerns. Id.
As the agency responsible for promulgating this regulation, the SBA's
interpretation deserves great weight, and we are required to give
deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its regulations.
See Red River Serv. Corp., B-279250, May 26, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 142 at
5-6; see also Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965).
We think that the SBA's interpretation of its regulation is
reasonable. The terms of the exception do not encompass all types of
new requirements, of which services previously performed by small
businesses are a part. Specifically, the exception does not state
that combining services previously performed in-house with otherwise
existing contract requirements necessarily constitutes a new
requirement subject to the exception; rather, the exception
specifically addresses only new requirements which are created by
combining existing contract requirements. Therefore, it is not
unreasonable to interpret this language as limited only to those new
requirements which are created solely from combining existing contract
requirements. Since the M&M RFP is a new requirement created by
combining marketing requirements previously performed largely in-house
with existing management contract requirements, the SBA reasonably
determined that the section 8(a) set-asides could be created for this
new requirement without an adverse impact analysis.[3]
Urban next alleges that the conditional nature of the section 8(a)
set-aside is unduly burdensome on small business concerns because they
do not have the resources to prepare proposals that will not be
considered if at least two competitive proposals are submitted by
section 8(a) concerns. Urban Protest at 3; Urban Comments at 8.
As set out above, the RFP set-aside scheme for the six designated
areas progresses from a section 8(a) set-aside, to a small business
set-aside, and finally to an unrestricted procurement, depending on
whether sufficient competitive proposals in the set-aside categories
are received. Under this scheme, both small and large business
concerns must submit proposals in response to the RFP to be considered
for award in the event the more restrictive set-aside requirements are
not satisfied, even though their proposals would not be evaluated if a
contract is awarded under the section 8(a) set-aside.
The SBA recommended this order of precedence approach to HUD as an
alternative to a completely unrestricted procurement. ARU at 15; SBA
Report at 7. The SBA states that this approach is not barred by any
statute or regulation, that the RFP clearly advised potential offerors
of the set-aside scheme so that they could assess the risks prior to
preparing a proposal, and that qualified small businesses may well be
willing to accept the risks associated with the order-of-precedence
structure of the set-aside to have the opportunity to receive the
relatively large contracts that will be awarded under these
set-asides. SBA Report at 8-9.
We are aware of no statute or regulation that would prohibit this
approach, nor has the protester identified any such statutory or
regulatory restriction. Since the scheme proposed by the SBA and
accepted by HUD will have the effect of increasing the opportunity for
small business concerns under an otherwise unrestricted solicitation,
we have no basis to object to this set-aside scheme as unduly
burdensome for small business concerns.
Finally, Urban alleges that the section 8(a) set-aside was imposed on
Area 3 without assessing the need for such a restriction in that area,
which is unconstitutional under the ruling in Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Pe�a, 515 U.S. 200 (1995),[4] as interpreted by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in Cortez III Serv. Corp.
v. National Aeronautics & Space Admin., 950 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C.
1996). Urban Protest at 5-6; Urban Comments at 3-4.
There must be clear judicial precedent on the precise issue presented
to us before we will consider a protest based on the asserted
unconstitutionality of a procuring agency's actions. Ervin and
Assocs., Inc., B-279161 et al., Apr. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 115 at 3.
We have consistently held that, since the Court in Adarand simply
announced the standard that is to be applied in determining the
constitutionality of programs involving racial classifications in the
federal government and remanded the case to the lower court for
further consideration in light of that standard, Adarand did not
provide that precedent. Id.
The ruling in Cortez applied the standard stated in Adarand to a
federal agency's decision to restrict a solicitation as a section 8(a)
set-aside, and discussed the corresponding analysis which the court
determined that the agency was required to perform before doing so.
Cortez v. NASA, 950 F. Supp. at 361-363. However, as noted by the SBA
and HUD, the Cortez decision concerned only a motion for a preliminary
injunction without a fully developed record, and the SBA advises that
this matter previously has had limited exposure in the courts and is
now the subject of on-going litigation in other courts. HUD Letter,
January 21, 1999, at 6; SBA Letter, January 21, 1999, at 4-7. Since
the Cortez decision is not binding on other courts and since the
effect of the Adarand decision remains a contentious issue in the area
of federal procurements, we do not think that the Cortez decision
represents the clear judicial precedent that our Office requires to
rule on protests alleging unconstitutional agency action. Thus, we
decline to consider Urban's protest on this basis.
THE McSWAIN PROTEST
McSwain challenges the agency's designation of Area 2 of the Atlanta
HOC for unrestricted competition, alleging that the five-state region
which comprises Area 2 of the Atlanta HOC under the RFP was created by
improperly bundling a large number of smaller REAM contract areas
without assessing the impact on small business concerns and that if
this area were broken up further it would be suitable for small
business set-asides. McSwain Protest at 2-3; McSwain Comments at 1-2.
The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 41 U.S.C. sec. 253a(a)
(1994), generally requires that solicitations permit full and open
competition and contain restrictive provisions or conditions only to
the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency. Since
bundled, consolidated, or total-package procurements combine separate,
multiple requirements into one contract, they have the potential for
restricting competition by excluding firms that can furnish only a
portion of the requirement. Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al.,
B-277241.12, B-277241.13, Dec. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 175 at 6.
Furthermore, the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 631(j)(3) (West
Supp. 1998), states that, "to the maximum extent practicable," each
agency shall "avoid unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract
requirements that precludes small business participation in
procurements as prime contractors." We will review such solicitations
to determine whether the approach is necessary and justified to
satisfy the agency's needs. See Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al.,
supra.
The Small Business Act, 15 sec. U.S.C.A. 644(e)(2)(A), states that,
before proceeding with an acquisition strategy that could lead to a
contract containing consolidated procurement requirements, the head of
an agency shall conduct market research to determine whether
consolidation of the requirements is necessary and justified. An
agency may determine that consolidation of requirements is "necessary
and justified if, as compared to the benefits that would be derived
from contracting to meet those requirements if not consolidated, the
Federal Government would derive from the consolidation measurably
substantial benefits, including any combination of benefits that, in
combination, are measurably substantial." 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 644(e)(2)(B).
Such benefits may include: (i) cost savings, (ii) quality
improvements, (iii) reduction in acquisition cycle times, (iv) better
terms and conditions, or (v) any other benefits. Id. "The reduction
of administrative or personnel costs alone shall not be a
justification for bundling of contract requirements unless the cost
savings are expected to be substantial in relation to the dollar value
of the procurement requirements to be consolidated." 15 U.S.C.A. sec.
644(e)(2)(C).
HUD does not consider these requirements as bundled, as defined by the
Small Business Act,[5] because the RFP includes previously unsolicited
marketing services and completely redesigns HUD's property management
and marketing methodology.[6] ARM at 16-19. The SBA disagrees
because the RFP includes substantial services previously provided or
performed under separate smaller contracts. SBA Report at 8 n.3.
However, HUD and the SBA both conclude that any bundling that may
exist under this RFP was necessary and justified. ARM Report at
19-23; SBA Report at 8 n.3, 9. As discussed below, whether or not
this RFP involved bundling, as defined under the Small Business Act,
the protester has not established that the bundling was unnecessary or
unjustified.
McSwain does not object to the bundling of the various types of
services provided in previous contracts with the newly solicited types
of services. What McSwain protests is the combination of numerous
small geographical regions that were previously the subject of REAM
contracts into a single five-state area because, while McSwain
"possesses excellent skills in all aspects as required in [the RFP,]
but [they are] not at a level of multi-state management."[7] McSwain
Protest at 3, Attachment 1 at 1.
Here, the M&M RFP includes consolidation of geographical areas of
management service contracts previously administered by HUD's 81 field
offices into 16 areas, which will be administered by the four HOCs as
well as additional services not previously obtained by contract.
HUD's REO was faced with the converging problems of being unable to
adequately administer the large number of REAM contracts with the
staff it had, as well as having a severely reduced staff in the near
future. The impetus for the M&M RFP approach was a documented need
for improved program efficiency and quality in the face of fewer
resources to administer the program. Realistically, these
circumstances left REO with little, if any, alternative to reducing
its contract administrative burden by having far fewer contracts
encompassing more requirements and by incentivizing the contractors to
more efficiently and successfully perform the M&M work.[8] The
structure of the M&M RFP can reasonably be expected to reduce the
amount of oversight by REO staff by reducing the number of contracts
from hundreds of REAM contracts administered from 81 field offices to
a maximum of 16 contracts administered from 4 HOCs. ARM at 19-20.
Additionally, the financial incentive for each contractor to perform
the maintenance and repairs which they deem necessary to enable them
to sell the contract at the highest possible price and to maximize
profits will add a self-monitoring component that was not possible
under the REAM contracting approach. Id. Furthermore, the transfer
of the marketing function to the contractors should provide improved
performance over REO's in-house performance, as illustrated by the
pilot program results. This should increase program efficiency and
reduce program costs. Id. The total result should reduce the
administrative burden sufficiently so that the small REO staff will be
able to adequately administer these contracts. Id.
HUD also believes that the improved oversight under the M&M
contracting approach, together with the financial incentives for
contractors to achieve the highest price for the properties under
their contracts, will improve the conditions of the properties, which
in turn will increase the value of surrounding properties and improve
the health and safety of the neighborhoods. ARM at 22. Although this
is yet to be proven by results, the expectation appears reasonable.
The SBA agrees with HUD that the restructuring of HUD's requirements
was necessary, and that the resulting benefits in cost savings and
quality improvements are substantial and justify the consolidation of
property management requirements into the M&M approach. SBA Report at
10. Furthermore, the SBA worked with HUD to ensure that the RFP
provides opportunities to the maximum extent practicable for small
business concerns, both as prime contractors and subcontractors, and
urges our Office not to disturb the resulting structure of the RFP.
Id.
We conclude that the record supports the finding that substantial
benefits of cost savings and quality improvements will likely result
from the consolidation of the previously contracted-out requirements
with HUD's new requirements into contracts covering relatively large
areas, and that these benefits go beyond reducing administrative and
personnel costs alone. The expected improved program efficiency and
quality, as well as the substantial potential cost savings, support
the finding that the consolidation of the requirements under the M&M
RFP approach was necessary and justified.
Given the protester's statement that it does not have "multi-state"
capability, it evidently seeks breaking up the five-state area in
question into much smaller pieces, presumably a contract for each
state. This would result in a proliferation of contract vehicles that
would undermine the basic benefits of the program. The protester has
failed to identify a reasonable alternative to the RFP consolidation
that would provide similar benefits. Thus, we cannot say this
particular five-state grouping was unnecessary or unjustified.
The protests are denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. These HOCs were initially developed to streamline HUD's mortgage
insurance processes. ARU at 4; ARM at 4. Four HOCs (Denver,
Philadelphia, Atlanta and Santa Ana, California) were created to cover
all regions of the country. The mortgage insurance processes were
transferred from the 81 HUD field offices to these 4 HOCs, reportedly
resulting in great efficiencies in insuring a high volume of home
loans. ARU at 1-2; ARM at 1-2.
2. Prices for managing properties which are not to be placed on the
market are to be based on a proposed fixed monthly rate for custodial
properties. RFP sec. B.III.
3. Urban's allegation that under certain REAM contracts it was
permitted to sell certain properties, thus implying that REAM
contracts encompassed the marketing requirements in the M&M RFP, Urban
Comments at 7, Exhibit 1 at 1, is not supported by the record. The
agency has provided a copy of Urban's REAM contract for several
counties in Florida, which was awarded in June 1995 and was in effect
during this protest. ARU, Exhibit 3. That contract does not include
any requirement or authority for Urban to sell or market HUD
properties, and Urban has provided no evidence to support its
allegations. In any case, Urban acknowledges that the M&M RFP
includes HUD REO functions in addition to existing contract
requirements. Urban Comments, Exhibit 1 at 3.
4. In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that racial classifications must
be subject to strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling governmental
interest and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. Adarand
v. Pena, 515 U.S. at 224-27.
5."Bundling of contract requirements" is defined by the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 632(o)(2), as:
consolidating 2 or more procurement requirements for goods
or services previously provided or performed under
separate smaller contracts into a solicitation of offers
for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for
award to a small-business concern due to--
(A) the diversity, size, or specialized nature of the
elements of the performance specified;
(B) the aggregate dollar value of the anticipated
award;
(C) the geographical dispersion of the contract
performance sites;
or
(D) any combination of the factors described in
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).
6. Because HUD did not consider the RFP to involve bundling, it did
not perform a formal market survey, as envisioned by the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 644(e)(2)(A).
7. McSwain's protest indicates interest in North Carolina work.
8. The results of HUD's pilot programs indicated that considerable
efficiencies, cost savings, and improved quality and marketability of
HUD properties could be achieved through a consolidation of the
services under a single contractor. ARM at 5, Exhibit 6.