HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaehx0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: PI Construction Company
File: B-272174; B-272177
Date: October 2, 1996
Paralee White, Esq., and Joseph A. Zillo, Esq., Cohen & White, for the protester.
David R. Kohler, Esq., Small Business Administration, Marian E. Sullivan, Esq.,
Department of the Air Force, and Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Department of the
Army, for the agencies.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Small Business Administration failed to follow its published regulatory
implementation of the statutory requirement that 8(a) construction contracts be
awarded to 8(a) concerns located within the county or state where the work will be
performed by imposing geographic restrictions linking the eligibility of an 8(a)
concern to compete for such contracts with the location at which the 8(a) concern
maintains its principal place of business, as opposed to a branch office.
DECISION
PI Construction Company protests as unduly restrictive of competition the
geographic restriction contained in request for proposals (RFP) No. F04626-96-R-
0105, issued by Travis Air Force Base, Department of the Air Force, in California,
and RFP No. DABT31-96-R-0003, issued by Fort Leonard Wood, Department of the
Army, in Missouri.
We sustain the protests.
The RFPs were issued by the Air Force and Army as competitive small
disadvantaged business set-asides under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. § 637(a) (1994), for construction requirements. In accepting the
respective Air Force and Army requirements for competition in the 8(a) program,
the SBA directed that competition under the Air Force procurement be limited to
8(a) concerns serviced by eight SBA District Offices and one SBA Branch Office in
Arizona, California, Nevada, and Hawaii (SBA Region IX), and that competition
under the Army procurement be limited to 8(a) concerns serviced by two SBA
District Offices in Missouri (SBA Region VII). The SBA stated that [a]ll other firms
[would be] deemed ineligible to submit offers. In accordance with the SBA's
140102](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaehx0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)