TITLE: B-311343, Singleton Enterprises- GMT Mechanical, A Joint Venture, April 23, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311343
DATE: April 23, 2008
********************************************************************************
B-311343, Singleton Enterprises- GMT Mechanical, A Joint Venture, April 23, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Singleton Enterprises- GMT Mechanical, A Joint Venture

   File: B-311343

   Date: April 23, 2008

   Arthur Wayne Singleton and Gary Michael Thompson, for the protester.

   Natica L. Chapman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs; and Kevin R.
   Harber, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies.

   Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency properly rejected bid of joint venture under a solicitation set
   aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns
   (SDVOSBC), where the Small Business Administration had determined with
   regard to another solicitation that the joint venture did not qualify as
   an SDVOSBC and this determination, which had been affirmed by the SBA's
   Office of Hearings and Appeals, remained in force and effect when the
   agency rejected the joint venture's bid.

   DECISION

   Singleton Enterprises-GMT Mechanical, A Joint Venture (JV) protests the
   rejection of its bid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under
   invitation for bids (IFB) No. VA-256-08-IB-0086, for the renovation of a
   garage file storage area at the VA Regional Office in Jackson,
   Mississippi.

   We dismiss the protest because the joint venture was not an eligible
   service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern (SDVOSBC).

   The agency issued the IFB on January 15, 2008, as a total set-aside for
   SDVOSBCS. In this regard, the IFB included the clause at Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.219-27, entitled, "Notice of Total
   Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside," under which a
   firm must represent at the time it submits its bid that it is an eligible
   SDVOSBC. Four firms, including Singleton-GMT JV, submitted bids in
   response to the solicitation at issue by the February 14 bid opening date.

   Meanwhile, on January 22, the VA filed a protest with the Small Business
   Administration (SBA) regarding the SDVOSBC eligibility of the
   Singleton-GMT JV with regard to its bid under Solicitation No.
   VA-249-07-IB-0058 issued by the VA Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.[1]
   On February 20, SBA's Director for Government Contracting sustained VA's
   protest and found that Singleton-GMT JV was not eligible to represent
   itself as an SDVOSBC for purposes of Federal procurement opportunities, or
   to bid on or receive contracts set aside for competition among SDVOSBCs.

   The low bid in response to the solicitation under protest here was
   rejected for reasons not germane to this protest. Singleton-GMT JV's
   second low bid was rejected on February 27 based on the SBA's February 20
   determination that the Singleton-GMT JV was not an eligible SDVOSBC and
   could not certify itself to be such on other procurements.

   On March 5, Singleton-GMT JV then filed an appeal of SBA's determination
   with the agency's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA), and submitted the
   instant bid protest to our Office on March 11. On March 27, the OHA
   affirmed the SBA's determination that Singleton-GMT JV did not qualify as
   an SDVOSBC. VA Submission (Mar. 27, 2007), attach., SBA OHA Decision (Mar.
   27, 2007).

   The VA has requested our Office to dismiss Singleton-GMT JV's protest
   because the rejection of the bid was mandated by the SBA's determination
   that the joint venture was not eligible to receive awards under
   solicitations that are set aside for SDVOSBCs. We solicited the views of
   the SBA on this protest, which concurs with the VA's position. We are
   required to give deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its
   regulations, and because the SBA is the agency responsible for
   promulgating the regulations regarding the SDVOSBC program we give its
   interpretations of its regulations great weight. Singleton Enters. -- GMT
   Mech., A Joint Venture, supra, at 3.

   As discussed in Singleton Enters. -- GMT Mech., A Joint Venture, supra, at
   4, Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 19.307(h) and 13 C.F.R.
   sect. 125.24(b) provide for the SBA's resolution of questions of SDVOSBC
   status and for an agency procedure to protest a firm's SDVOSBC status to
   the SBA. Consistent with the SBA's regulations, 13 C.F.R. sect. 125.27(g)
   and 125.28 (2007), the SBA's February 20 determination that Singleton-GMT
   JV is not an SDVOSBC expressly stated that the determination was effective
   "immediately" and was "final" unless overturned on appeal or unless relief
   was granted under 13 C.F.R. sect. 125.27(g) (e.g., a change in ownership
   to satisfy the SDVOSBC definition), and that because of this determination
   the joint venture was ineligible to bid on or receive any SDVOSBC contract
   awards. VA Dismissal Request, exh. 4, SBA's SDVOSBC Determination.

   According to the SBA, given that the OHA has affirmed the SBA's
   determination, before Singleton-GMT JV can bid on or receive SDVOSBC
   contracts, the joint venture must request that SBA grant it relief under
   13 C.F.R. sect. 125.27(g), and prove that it merits such relief by
   documenting the actions it has taken to address those problems with its
   eligibility that were identified by SBA. If the SBA agrees that the firm
   qualifies as an SDVOSBC, then the agency will grant relief under 13 C.F.R.
   sect. 125.25(g) and issue a new determination letter to the firm stating
   that it qualifies as an SDVOSBC and that it is eligible to bid on and
   receive SDVOSBC contracts. To date Singleton-GMT JV has not requested, and
   SBA has not granted, relief from that decision under 13 C.F.R. sect.
   125.27(g).[2]

   Singleton-GMT JV also contends that the OHA decision affirming the SBA's
   determination that the joint venture is not an SDVOSBC was not yet final
   but, under 13 C.F.R. sect. 227(a), was only the OHA's initial decision and
   could not be final for 30 days. Thus, the protester contends, the VA
   cannot rely upon the SBA's and OHA's determinations to reject
   Singleton-GMT JV's bid. However, as noted by the SBA, OHA's rulings on
   appeal are effective immediately, and are final, unless or until the judge
   chooses to reconsider the ruling; in fact the OHA's decision states that
   "[t]his is the final decision of the Small Business Administration." VA
   Submission (Mar. 27, 2007), attach., SBA OHA Decision (Mar. 27, 2007) at
   8.

   Because the SBA's February 20 determination that Singleton-GMT JV was not
   an SDVOSBC has remained in force and effect, the VA properly rejected
   Singleton-GMT JV's bid.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Our Office previously sustained Singleton-GMT JV's protest concerning
   the VA's rejection of the joint venture's bid as nonresponsive under
   Solicitation No. VA-249-07-IB-0058. We sustained the protest because the
   VA's rejection was based on its finding that the joint venture was not a
   proper SDVOSBC but this determination could not be made by the agency
   because it was subject to determination by the SBA. Singleton Enters. -
   GMT Mech., A Joint Venture, B-310552, Jan. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 16.

   [2] We disagree with the protester's contention that "the only plausible
   process for a concern to show that it has overcome the reasons for the
   protest in the earlier solicitation is to `self-represent' its status as a
   SDVOSBC to the contracting activity as part of its offer on a later
   solicitation." Singleton-GMT JV's Comments (Apr. 16, 2008) at 3. In this
   regard, 13 C.F.R. sect. 125.28 states that "the protested concern cannot
   self-represent its status for another procurement until it has cured the
   eligibility issue." 13 C.F.R. sect. 125.28; see also 13 C.F.R. sect.
   127(g) (quoted above).