TITLE:   Nordic Sensor Technologies, Inc., B-282942, July 23, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-282942
DATE:  July 23, 1999
**********************************************************************
Nordic Sensor Technologies, Inc., B-282942, July 23, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Nordic Sensor Technologies, Inc.

File: B-282942

Date: July 23, 1999

Kenneth S. Kramer, Esq., KSK Consulting, for the protester.

Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Procurement under simplified acquisition threshold for a laboratory
electronic sensor instrument was properly set aside for exclusive small
business participation where contracting officer reasonably determined that
there was a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from at least two
responsible small business concerns at a competitive market price.

DECISION

Nordic Sensor Technologies, Inc. protests the specifications under request
for quotations (RFQ) No. 021-4384-99, issued by the Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service as a small business set-aside for
the acquisition of a laboratory electronic sensor instrument known as an
"electronic nose." Nordic objects that the procurement should not be set
aside for exclusive small business participation and asserts that the RFQ
specifications are otherwise unduly restrictive.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued on May 26, 1999, by publication in the Commerce Business
Daily, with a June 11 due date for receipt of quotes. Designated as a small
business set-aside with a standard industrial classification code (SIC) of
3826 and a small business size standard of 500 employees, the RFQ contained
a number of performance specifications for a high performance electronic
nose system. The government estimate for the procurement was $40,500. On
June 8, Nordic filed this protest with our Office, objecting to the RFQ.

Nordic, which states that it is ineligible to compete under this set-aside,
asserted in its protest that the performance specifications call for an
electronic nose system that can be furnished by only one company, Alpha
M.O.S. America, Inc., which is allegedly not a small business, and that
there are no small business concerns that can furnish the required system.

Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 13.003(b)(1), an acquisition
with an estimated value exceeding $2,500 and not exceeding $100,000 is
reserved exclusively for small business concerns and shall be set aside in
accordance with Subpart 19.5. FAR sect. 19.502-2(a) provides, in relevant part,
that a set aside of such an acquisition is automatic:

unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable
expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business
concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and
delivery.

As a general rule, the decision as to whether to set aside a particular
procurement is within the discretion of the contracting agency. Aspen Sys.
Corp., B-272213.2, Oct. 22, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 153 at 3. We will not question
a set-aside decision unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. Id.
Here, there is no basis to conclude that the agency abused its discretion.

It is uncontested that the government estimate for the RFQ at issue falls
within the $2,500 to $100,000 simplified acquisition range within which the
FAR requires that the procurement automatically be set aside for small
business concerns absent an appropriate contrary determination. Contracting
Officer's Statement of Facts at l. The contracting officer determined, based
on past procurement history and a search of the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) listing of small business concerns for the SIC code,
that there was a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from at least
two small business concerns. Id.

In making this determination the contracting officer specifically considered
that the procurement history included two prior solicitations under SIC code
3826, one for an olfactory sensing instrument and the other for a digital
aroma technology system, in which award had been made to small business
concerns, including one under which offers had been received from two small
business concerns. While the protester has submitted a declaration from its
manager stating his belief that the three companies identified under the
prior solicitations, including Alpha M.O.S. America, Inc., furnished
foreign-manufactured systems and are large businesses, Declaration of Aaron
D. Kramer, July 5, 1999, at 2-3, the protester has provided no evidence to
support this belief. [1] In this regard, the protester initially asserted
that Alpha M.O.S. America, Inc. did not qualify as a small business because
it is owned or controlled by a foreign company and provides components from
France and elsewhere in Europe. Protest at 2. In fact, by a size
determination memorandum dated June 30, 1999, the SBA made a formal
determination that Alpha M.O.S. America, Inc. is a qualifying small business
under the standards of this procurement because it performs sufficient
assembly effort in the United States. The protester subsequently conceded
this determination but now asserts that it "likely will appeal" the SBA
decision. [2] Protester's Comments at 3 n.1. Particularly in view of the SBA
determination that at least one of the concerns that Nordic contends is a
large business is a qualifying small business, we do not believe that the
protester's opinion about the other firms identified by the contracting
officer as potential small business offerors calls into question the
reasonableness of the contracting officer's determination. [3] Accordingly,
based on the record before us, the agency's decision to set aside the RFQ
for exclusive participation by small business concerns was reasonable and
did not constitute an abuse of its discretion.

Because Nordic does not qualify as a small business concern for purposes of
this procurement, for which the RFQ was properly set aside for small
business, Nordic is not an interested party eligible to protest the other
terms of the RFQ. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(a) (1999); ARO Corp., B-231438, July 22,
1988, 88-2 CPD para. 74 at 2.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Rather than offering any evidence, the declaration is replete with
phrases such as "I am confident" and "I am advised." We view such
unsupported statements as having no probative value.

2. Although the regulations provide for an appeal from an initial SBA size
determination by any concern that has been adversely affected, the pendency
of such an appeal would not have any legal effect here. FAR sect. 19.302 (i);
Ultra Tech. Corp., B-230309.6, Jan. 18, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 42 at 6-7.

3. The fact that the agency apparently has received only one small business
offer does not call into question the propriety of the set-aside
determination because that determination depends on a reasonable expectation
that at least two small businesses will participate, and is not affected by
the number of proposals actually received. FAR sect. 19.502-2(a); Hospital
Shared Servs. of Colorado, Inc., B-236005.3, Dec. 22, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 582
at 5.