TITLE: B-297200.3, Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc., March 21, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297200.3
DATE: March 21, 2006
*********************************************************************************
B-297200.3, Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc., March 21, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc.

   File: B-297200.3

   Date: March 21, 2006

   William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, LLP,
   for the protester.

   Angela B. Styles, Esq., and Robert K. Huffman, Esq., Miller & Chevalier,
   for McLane Advanced Technologies LLC, the intervenor.

   Lt. Col. Frank A. March, Department of the Army, Thedlus L. Thompson,
   Esq., General Services Administration, and John W. Klein, Esq., and
   Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.

   Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where agency initially set Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurement aside
   for small businesses, but subsequently decided to conduct purchase on
   non-set-aside basis, agency's elimination of set-aside was
   unobjectionable; small business set-aside requirments do not apply to FSS
   purchases.

   DECISION

   Global Analytic Information Technology Services, Inc. (GAITS) protests the
   terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W91QUZ-06-Q-0001 (RFQ-0001),
   issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Agency, Information
   Technology E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center, as a Federal
   Supply Schedule (FSS) purchase of project management and support services
   for the Standard Army Maintenance System-Enhanced and Legacy Standard Army
   Management Information Systems modernization program. GAITS, a small
   business concern, argues that the solicitation should be set aside for
   small businesses.

   We deny the protest.

   The agency originally sought the services here under RFQ
   No. W91QUZ-05-Q-0005, which was set aside for small business concerns.
   This resulted in issuance of a task order to McLane Advanced Technologies,
   LLC, which was followed by the filing of size protests with the Small
   Business Administration (SBA) challenging McLane's size status. SBA
   determined that McLane was not a small business concern, and subsequently
   denied McLane's appeal of the determination. Thereafter, the Army
   terminated McLane's task order and, on December 6, 2005, posted RFQ-0001
   on the General Services Administration's (GSA) e-Buy electronic service,
   requesting that vendors holding a specified FSS contract submit quotations
   for a base year, with four 1-year options. This RFQ is not set aside for
   small businesses.

   GAITS asserts that the RFQ should be aside for small businesses because it
   was previously issued on a set-aside basis. According to GAITS, based on
   the principles of equity and fairness, where an agency initially competes
   a requirement as a small business set-aside, it should be required to
   complete the competition on that basis. The protester also asserts that
   the Army has violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 19.506
   requirements regarding the withdrawal of set-asides.

   The protest is without merit. As noted above, the agency conducted this
   procurement as an FSS acquisition under FAR part 8.4. FAR sect. 8.404(a)
   specifically provides that FAR part 19 (Small Business Programs) does "not
   apply" (except under circumstances not relevant here) to orders placed
   against FSS contracts. Thus, the agency was not required to set the
   requirement aside in the first instance, and was not precluded from
   subsequently resoliciting the requirement on an unrestricted basis. In
   this latter regard, we have specifically held that the FAR exempts task
   orders issued under FSS contracts from application of the set-aside
   withdrawal requirements found in FAR sect. 19.506. Millennium Data Sys.,
   Inc., B-292357.2, Mar. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 48 at 9-10. The
   protester's belief that equity and fairness dictate that the set-aside
   restriction be maintained under the reissued RFQ does not provide a basis
   for us to conclude that the agency was required to do so.[1]

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1]During the course of this protest, we solicited the views of GSA and
   SBA. GSA expressed the view that (1) FAR sect. 8.404(a) prohibited the
   Army from setting the requirement aside for small businesses, since it
   makes FAR part 19 inapplicable to FSS purchases (we do not reach this
   question in our decision here), and that (2) in any case, the Army was not
   required to set the reissued RFQ aside, since "it is clear that the FAR
   does not intend that Part 19 apply to orders placed under the MAS
   [multiple award schedule] program." GSA Response to Protest at 2. SBA
   expressed the limited view that it was permissible for the agency to set
   the requirement aside initially. SBA did not express a view as to whether
   it was proper for the agency to reissue the RFQ on an unrestricted basis.
   SBA Response to Protest at 2-4.