TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-77.jpg

Protesting Set-Aside Determinations Based on Insufficient Market Research

The federal government must base its acquisition decisions on sufficiently supported facts and data. While acquisition decisions such as set-aside determinations are squarely within the government’s discretion as a matter of business judgment, the underlying data and analysis supporting such decisions must be accurate. Similarly, when the government makes set-aside decisions based on market research, any assumptions on which the market research is based must also be correct. Additionally, the results of the market research must themselves be current, accurate, and complete. When the government relies on flawed market research to support its set-aside determinations, prospective offerors may protest those decisions in the form of pre-award protests that challenge the terms of a solicitation.

In B-422433.2, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained such a pre-award protest challenging the government’s small business set-aside determination based on an outdated market survey, which was conducted under an incorrect assumption. The request for proposal (RFP) subject to the protest was issued by the Navy’s Naval Undersea Warfare Center (Navy) to acquire SONAR sounding sets via a single award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The acquisition implicated the “Rule of Two” and the “Nonmanufacturer Rule.” The interplay of these rules with the facts and circumstances surrounding the procurement ultimately rendered the Navy’s set-aside decision unreasonable.

Under the Rule of Two described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 19.502-2(b), federal agencies must set aside for small businesses any procurement valued over the simplified acquisition threshold when there is a reasonable expectation that it will receive offers from at least two responsible small business concerns and that the award will be made at a fair market price. Meanwhile, under the Nonmanufacturer Rule, in contracts that include the clause at FAR 52.219-33, contractors must provide end items manufactured by a small business in the United States. The Small Business Administration (SBA) can issue a Nonmanufacturer Rule class waiver for a specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that waives the domestic small business production requirement imposed by the clause at FAR 52.219-33 for end items under that NAICS code.

Before issuing the solicitation in B-422433.2, the Navy released a sources-sought notice, which received responses from five small businesses. Based on those responses, the Navy concluded that three of the five small businesses could meet the solicitation’s technical requirements, thus satisfying the Rule of Two. Consequently, the RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside. At its issuance, the RFP did not include the Nonmanufacturer Rule clause at FAR 52.219-33. The RFP also informed prospective offerors that the SBA had issued a class waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule for the relevant NAICS code 334511. However, a few months later, the Navy discovered that the Nonmanufacturer Rule class waiver issued by the SBA was narrower in scope and that the waiver was not applicable to the SONAR sounding sets that the Navy was procuring.

As a result, and in response to an earlier protest, the Navy amended the solicitation to remove references to the SBA class waiver and included the Nonmanufacturer Rule clause at FAR 52.219-33. Notably, the Navy did not conduct new or additional market research before amending the solicitation, instead continuing its reliance upon the prior market survey, which was conducted on the errant belief that a class waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule applied to the procurement. The protestor alleged that due to the amendment’s inclusion of the Nonmanufacturer Rule, the Navy’s previous market research was now outdated and provided insufficient support for the Navy’s decision to set aside the procurement for small businesses. The protestor contended that had the Navy conducted new market research, it would have realized that the Rule of Two could not be satisfied with the inclusion of the Nonmanufacturer Rule clause in the RFP. Consequently, the Navy would have issued the solicitation on a full and open basis.

Meanwhile, the Navy argued that it was under no obligation to revisit its market research just because the Nonmanufacturing Rule clause was now included in the RFP. In support of the Navy’s position, the contracting officer (CO) provided a statement affirming that he had reread the market research report and confirmed that the set-aside decision was still correct. Additionally, the Navy pointed to the GAO’s decision in Synchrogenix Info. Strategies, B-414068.4, Sept. 8, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 283. The Navy argued that it was not required to redo its Rule of Two market research even if it later became aware that it would only receive one responsible small business offer in response to an amended solicitation.

In sustaining the protest, the GAO explained that its decision in Synchrogenix was not applicable here because the protestor in Synchrogenix had not challenged the agency’s set-aside determination. In the present protest, the protestor challenged the reasonableness of the Navy’s set-aside determination, alleging that the set-aside decision was based on flawed and outdated market research. Furthermore, in Synchrogenix, the agency properly conducted the Rule of Two analysis for the set-aside determination and later discovered that only one responsible small business would submit an offer. Here, the Navy did not conduct an adequate Rule of Two analysis because its market research was based on an outdated and incorrect assumption that the Nonmanufacturer Rule did not apply. Therefore, the market research failed to consider whether prospective small business offerors that responded to the survey could comply with the Nonmanufacturer Rule. As a result, the GAO concluded that when making the set-aside determination, the Navy CO could not have known whether any identified small businesses could meet the Nonmanufacturer Rule requirement while offering fair market prices.

To demonstrate that the flawed market survey impacted the Navy’s analysis concerning the set-aside determination, the GAO also specifically pointed to the market survey’s conclusion that an ineligible small business could perform the work. In response to the sources-sought notice, the small business had explicitly stated that it would supply SONAR sounding sets manufactured by a Canadian company. However, despite this obvious inconsistency with the Nonmanufacturer Rule, the survey concluded that the small business was eligible to compete because, at the time the Navy conducted the survey, it was under the incorrect impression that the Nonmanufacturer Rule did not apply. The market research similarly failed to assess whether other prospective small business offerors could comply with the Nonmanufacturer Rule. Therefore, the Navy’s Rule of Two analysis and the set-aside determination based on that analysis were flawed.

Finally, the GAO gave little weight to the CO’s post hoc conclusory statement that he had reread the market research report and sources sought responses and confirmed that the set-aside decision was correct. The GAO found that the statement had no support in the contemporaneous record and that the CO had failed to sufficiently explain his conclusion that he was not required to revisit the market research or otherwise assess the capability of prospective small business offerors to comply with the later included nonmanufacturer rule. In sustaining the protest, the GAO recommended that the Navy reconduct its market research and determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that at least two or more responsible small businesses will submit proposals for supplying the SONAR sounding sets at fair market prices.

Government set-aside determinations are generally granted deference by protest adjudicative forums such as the GAO unless the protestor can demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable. One of the ways in which the protestor may succeed in such a protest is by showing that the market research underlying the set-aside decision was flawed, outdated, or otherwise defective. In situations where the set aside decision is based on flawed or outdated market research, protestors should focus their protest arguments on the insufficiency of the agency’s Rule of Two analysis. This is especially true if the record demonstrates that the agency failed to revisit the results of its market research underlying the set aside decision after an amendment to the solicitation rendered the market research obsolete. Since set-aside determinations, like other acquisition decisions, must be reasonably supported by the record and adequately documented, challenging the sufficiency of the research or analysis underlying the decisions may increase the likelihood of successful protest outcomes.

This Bid Protests Insight provides a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-10.jpg

Acquisition planning on U.S. federal contracts requires the contracting activity to coordinate and integrate the efforts of all personnel responsible for the acquisition via a comprehensive plan that fulfills the government’s requirements in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984, implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6, mandates full and open competition in federal procurement. Consequently, while there are limited exceptions enumerated in FAR § 6.3, federal agencies must generally use competitive procedures in procuring products and services. Furthermore, federal agencies are expressly prohibited from entering contracts for property or services by utilizing non-competitive procedures when they have failed to properly plan the procurement in advance.

Contractors looking to challenge the Government’s use of non-competitive procedures in such improperly planned procurements must be prepared to demonstrate that the agency’s decision was unreasonable under the particular circumstances of that procurement. In 2014, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency under the Department of Interior (DOI), was involved in a procurement contract for technology services. The procurement at issue was a Buy Indian Set-Aside conducted under the Buy Indian Act of 1910, and the eventual contract was awarded to an eligible non-incumbent contractor. However, a week before the conclusion of the predecessor contract, the incumbent contractor timely protested the award at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In response, the BIA informed the GAO that it intended to take corrective action and requested that the GAO dismiss the incumbent’s protest.

more
TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-14.jpg

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 establishes the Government’s preference for acquiring commercial items through customary commercial practices. Therefore, prospective contractors may raise pre-award protests against commercial item solicitations that deviate from customary commercial practices without obtaining an adequate waiver for doing so. In defending against such protests, it is the Government’s burden to show that it conducted adequate market research, which demonstrated that the solicitation provisions at issue are consistent with customary commercial practices. Alternatively, if the Government deviates from such customary commercial practices, it must obtain a waiver. Such waivers must be based on adequate market research, describe the customary commercial practice in the marketplace, and demonstrate why the Government’s requirements cannot be met by following customary commercial practices. In other words, the government must demonstrate its need to include solicitation provisions that are inconsistent with customary commercial practices.

In B-411760.2, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a bid protest alleging that the Army failed to conduct adequate market research to reasonably support its determination that the pricing terms for a solicitation procuring a commercial service were consistent with customary commercial practices. The FAR Part 12 solicitation was issued in 2015 to procure solid waste management services at Fort Polk, Louisiana, where nearly 44,000 U.S. Army soldiers trained yearly before deployment. The solicitation contemplated a single-award indefinite-delivery requirements contract and required prospective contractors to submit pricing reflecting all fixed and variable costs per ton. That is, contractors were only permitted to invoice the Government based on the tonnage of waste collected. The incumbent contractor filed a pre-award protest alleging that the solicitation’s per-ton pricing provisions were inconsistent with customary commercial practice.

more
TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-46.jpg

In procurement parlance, insourcing refers to an organizational decision to perform the work internally instead of procuring it from outside sources. As procuring entities, government agencies may, from time to time, decide to internally perform work that was previously contracted out via competitive procedures or otherwise choose to perform new work using agency employees and resources. While such occasions are relatively rare, contractors may need to challenge such government decisions to insource work. A potential example of such a scenario could involve a contractor challenging an agency’s decision not to issue a follow-on contract on which the contractor is the incumbent due to the agency’s decision to perform the work internally using government employees.

Protesting such insourcing decisions involves a situation in which choosing one protest forum over another may prove advantageous for prospective protestors. This is because when reviewing insourcing decisions, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) bid protest jurisdiction may be somewhat limited compared to that of the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). For instance, while the GAO routinely reviews agency decisions to cancel procurements to determine whether the cancellations were reasonable, it has been reticent to review such cancellations under its bid protest function when the work under canceled procurement is to be performed by government employees. This is because the GAO, a part of the legislative branch of the government, considers such insourcing decisions to be within the purview of government discretion and a matter of executive branch policy.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-73.jpg

When reviewing an agency’s procurement actions, adjudicative forums such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) typically consider various materials and information in the record. Such materials may include arguments the agency and contractor raised during litigation, explanations of decisions and events advanced during the procurement cycle, and any hearing testimony. When reviewing evidence to determine the reasonableness of the government’s procurement actions, the adjudicative forum will generally assign greater weight to contemporaneous materials than post hoc arguments or analyses. This is because the judgments made in the heat of an adversarial process do not always represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency. Therefore, while adjudicative forums will consider explanations provided by agency counsel that merely fill in previously unrecorded details, post hoc rationalizations are typically deemed less persuasive. For instance, in resolving bid protests, the GAO has explained that it accords greater weight to contemporaneous materials, which are far more indicative of whether the agency conducted a rational evaluation and source selection process.

In B-422162; B-422162.2; B-422162.3, a bid protest decision issued on February 1, 2024, the GAO applied this principle in sustaining the protestor’s challenge to the government’s cost realism evaluation. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) awarded the contract at issue for environmental remediation services at the Durham Manufacturing Company superfund site in Connecticut. The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract was awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis where the non-price factors, when combined, were approximately equal to cost. Notably, the solicitation provided that the government would evaluate proposed costs for realism and, if needed, adjust an offeror’s unrealistically low proposed costs to a most probable cost (MPC) calculated solely for evaluation purposes. Among other contentions, the protestor alleged that USACE made unreasonable upward adjustments to the proposed rates for two labor positions. Specifically, USACE evaluators found the protestors’ rates for the quality control (QC) manager and site safety and health officer (SSHO) position to be unrealistically low when compared to the independent government estimate (IGE). However, instead of upwardly adjusting the protestor’s QC manager and SSHO rates to the IGE rates for these positions, the evaluators adjusted these rates to the protestor’s proposed rate for the superintendent position. The evaluators also failed to contemporaneously record their rationale for this adjustment.

more

Protesting Set-Aside Determinations Based on Insufficient Market Research

TILLIT LAW Bid Protest Insights