TITLE: B-400157, Logistics Health, Inc., August 13, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400157
DATE: August 13, 2008
*************************************************
B-400157, Logistics Health, Inc., August 13, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Logistics Health, Inc.

   File: B-400157

   Date: August 13, 2008

   Tom Walch and Suzanne Witt-Botcher, Esq., for the protester.
   Maj. William J. Nelson, Department of the Army, for the agency.
   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel,
   GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency determination to set aside dental services procurement for
   exclusive small business participation was reasonable where market
   research identified eight small businesses, at least two of which appeared
   responsible and capable of performing the contract requirements.

   DECISION

   Logistics Health, Incorporated (LHI) protests the terms of request for
   proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-08-R-0036, a total small business set-aside,
   issued by the Department of the Army for a dental provider network. LHI, a
   large business, asserts that the agency improperly restricted the
   solicitation to small businesses.

   We deny the protest.

   The Army operates soldier readiness processing (SRP) stations at
   mobilization locations throughout the continental United States. The
   primary purpose of the SRP dental stations is to process and validate the
   dental readiness of Army Reserve soldiers. Due to facility and personnel
   constraints, it is necessary to refer some Army and other military service
   members to civilian providers near the SRP stations. The RFP sought
   proposals for provision of a dental network to meet these requirements at
   up to 14 locations and contemplated the award of a fixed-price
   indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a period of 1 year,
   with 4 option years.

   LHI is currently providing a dental network under a sole-source contract,
   which was awarded in 2006 based on the agency's determination that it was
   the only responsible source available and that no other services would
   satisfy the agency's requirements. See Federal Acquisition Regulation
   (FAR) sect. 6.302-1. LHI protested an earlier solicitation for these
   services on the basis that it was improperly restricted to service
   disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB). In response to that RFP,
   the agency received only one proposal--which was non-compliant--and it
   thus canceled the solicitation; we dismissed the protest as academic
   (B-310934, Jan. 11, 2008). When the agency reissued the RFP as a small
   business set-aside, LHI filed this protest challenging the propriety of
   the set-aside determination. LHI asserts that the set-aside is improper
   because it believes that there are not two small businesses with
   demonstrated qualifications or past performance that can provide the
   services requested at all mobilization site locations.

   An acquisition with an anticipated dollar value of more than $100,000 must
   be set aside for small business concerns if the agency determines that
   there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from two or
   more responsible small business concerns, and that award will be made at a
   fair market price. FAR sect. 19.502-2(b). The use of any particular method
   of assessing the availability of small businesses is not required so long
   as the agency undertakes reasonable efforts to locate responsible
   potential competitors. National Linen Serv., B-285458, Aug. 22, 2000, 2000
   CPD para. 138 at 2. The decision whether to set aside a procurement may be
   based on an analysis of factors such as prior procurement history,
   recommendations of appropriate small business specialists, and market
   surveys that include responses to sources sought announcements. Id.; SAB
   Co., B-283883, Jan. 20, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 58 at 1-2. Generally, our
   Office regards such a determination as a matter of business judgment, and
   we will not disturb that determination absent a clear showing that it was
   unreasonable. National Linen Serv., supra, at 2.

   The agency's set-aside determination is unobjectionable. Prior to issuing
   the RFP, the contracting officer conducted market research using the small
   business dynamic search of the Central Contractor Registration database.
   This research revealed--under North American Industry Classification
   System (NAICS) code No. 621210 (offices of dentists)--two Section
   8(a)-certified firms, two small disadvantaged firms, six SDVOSBs, nine
   veteran owned small businesses, and three woman-owned small businesses.
   Contracting Officer's Statement paras. 6-7. The contracting officer also
   posted a request for information (RFI) on the Federal Business
   Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. Eight small businesses responded to
   the RFI, including two small businesses, two veteran-owned small firms,
   and four SDVOSBs. Contracting Officer's Statement para. 8. Two of the
   companies, one a veteran-owned small business and the other an SDVOSB,
   provided information indicating that they were responsible and capable of
   performing the contract requirements. For example, each had numerous
   dentists available within the required SRP service radius.[1] The
   contracting officer's market research indicated that there were a large
   number of small and large business vendors providing these services and
   she also found that pricing for the services would be competitively based.
   Agency Report, Tab 9, at 4.

   We find that the agency's market research was thorough and reasonably
   conducted to identify potential small business offerors. Since the
   research identified multiple small businesses--at least two of which were
   deemed responsible and capable of performing the requirement--the record
   reasonably supports the contracting officer's finding of a reasonable
   expectation of receiving two or more proposals from small businesses and
   that award would be made at a fair market price. In short, we conclude
   that the contracting officer reasonably exercised her business judgment to
   set the procurement aside for small businesses.

   Our conclusion is not changed by LHI's speculation that it is "extremely
   unlikely" that sufficient small businesses could have acquired the
   requisite expertise and past performance in the ensuing 18 months, since
   the agency awarded LHI's sole-source contract based on its being the only
   available contractor. Protest at 1. In this regard, the record shows that,
   of the eight small businesses responding to the RFI, six had experience
   ranging from 10 to 20 years.[2] AR, Tab 9. Further, the agency explains
   that it did not conduct extensive market research prior to making award to
   LHI, but awarded LHI's contract based on the need to deploy soldiers
   rapidly, the need to transition to a new contractor within 60 days, and
   LHI's existing network of providers. Contracting Officer's Statement
   para. 5. The agency states that failure to award to LHI at that time would
   have jeopardized the upcoming deployment of forces. Id.

   LHI also asserts that the agency did not need to conduct a competition for
   this requirement. In the protester's view, the agency could have met its
   needs at a lower cost under LHI's recently awarded Reserve Health
   Readiness Program (RHRP) contract. However, LHI does not assert, and there
   is nothing in the record to establish, that the agency was required to
   obtain its dental services under the RHRP contract; LHI's desire to have
   the agency satisfy this requirement through LHI's contract does not
   establish that it was required to do so. Since the purpose of our bid
   protest function is to ensure that agencies obtain full and open
   competition to the maximum extent practicable, we will generally favor
   otherwise proper agency actions--like the one here to use a competitive
   set-aside solicitation--that are taken to increase competition. Knowledge
   Connections, Inc., B-297986, May 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 85 at 4.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The contracting officer's record of market research contains detailed
   capability statements from the firms responding to the RFI. However,
   because the procurement is ongoing, we have not included more specific
   information on their capabilities in this decision.

   [2] LHI asserts that the agency had more than 60 days to decide how it
   would meet its needs at the time it awarded the sole-source contract.
   Comments at 4. However, even assuming that the protester is correct, this
   does not mean that responsible and capable small businesses were not then
   available; the agency simply had not done the market research to make that
   determination.