Protection Strategies Etc. International, LLC (B-423539)

You should care.

Category: SDVOSB set-aside, contract type

Date: 25 August 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423539

Protection Strategies Etc. International, an SDVOSB, protested the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency's solicitation for background investigation support services. The protester challenged the agency's failure to set aside the procurement for SDVOSBs, removal of SDVOSB evaluation preferences, phase-in requirements, and use of fixed-price contracting.

GAO dismissed challenges to discussions provisions (agency took corrective action) and SDVOSB set-aside arguments. The protester incorrectly argued that finding a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two or more SDVOSBs required an SDVOSB set-aside. GAO clarified that while agencies must consider SDVOSB set-asides, they are not required to implement them even when two responsible SDVOSB firms are available. (Note, the VA-exclusive Veterans First preferences do not apply here.)

Phase-in requirements: GAO denied the protester's claim that phase-in activities were unfunded, noting the agency clearly stated "Phase-in activities will be funded at the Task Order level" and committed to issuing the first task order during the 90-day phase-in period.

Fixed-price contracting: GAO denied challenges to the contract type, finding the agency provided sufficient historical workload data spanning five years and level-of-effort information to allow intelligent competition. The protester's concerns about potential Trump administration workforce reductions were deemed speculative without concrete statutory or regulatory changes.

Digest

1. Protest alleging solicitation includes contradictory terms regarding whether discussions will be held is dismissed as academic where agency intends to amend the solicitation to clarify solicitation's discussions provisions.
2. Protest arguing agency failed to set aside procurement for service-disabled veteran‑owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) and improperly removed an SDVOSB evaluation preference from solicitation is dismissed for failing to state a legally sufficient basis of protest where agency's actions do not violate any procurement law or regulation.
3. Protest contention that solicitation's phase-in requirements are unfunded, and thus, place undue risk on offerors is denied where contention ignores the plain language of the solicitation. Additional allegation that phase-in requirements are ambiguous is denied where the solicitation's terms provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and on an equal basis.
4. Protest challenging agency's selection of a fixed-price contract type as placing undue risk on prospective offerors is denied where the agency provided historical workload volume and level of effort data sufficient to permit offerors to compete intelligently and on an equal basis.