ACCU-Lab Medical Testing V. B-270259

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

table,div,span,font,p{display:none}Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

B-270259 1 (1996-02-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptadxr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:

Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548

Decision

Matter of: ACCU-Lab Medical Testing

File: B-270259

Date: February 20, 1996

Joseph Gallo, Esq., Gallo and Ross, for the protester.
H. Charles Coburn, Esq., Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the
agency.
Audrey H. Liebross, Esq., for the Small Business Administration.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST

Agency improperly withdrew small business set-aside for drug testing services,
notwithstanding its receipt of 21 expressions of interest from small businesses,
where the agency did not perform an adequate market survey to determine whether
it could reasonably expect 2 or more responsible small businesses to submit bids at
fair market prices, but simply relied on prior procurement history that did not itself
justify the decision to withdraw the set-aside.
DECISION

ACCU-Lab Medical Testing protests the issuance of invitation for bids (IFB)
No. 100-0575-5 by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for inmate
drug testing services. ACCU-Lab asserts that the solicitation should have been set
aside for exclusive small business participation.

We sustain the protest.

As originally issued by the Bureau in September 1994, the solicitation was set aside
for exclusive small business participation. Twenty-one small businesses responded
to the synopsis in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) by requesting copies of the
IFB. Before bids were submitted, the Bureau determined that the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, would be able to provide the
drug testing services less expensively than the incumbent contractor. Instead of
continuing with the procurement, the Bureau entered into an inter-agency
agreement with the VA for the solicited drug testing services with performance
commencing on July 13, 1995. Pharmchem, the incumbent contractor, then filed an
action in the United States District Court to enjoin the Bureau from obtaining the
drug testing services from the VA. Pharmchem alleged, among other things, that the
Bureau had improperly determined that the VA could provide the services more

109216