Flunking Subcontracting Limitation is a proposal acceptability issue, not responsibility issue

The Governement Accountability Office sustained (Case B-298364.6; B-298364.7, TYBRIN Corporation, March 13, 2007) the protest of a total small business set aside contract where the apparent winner did not meet the limitations on subcontracting. The Air Force tried twice to get that contractor qualified (note: adding the work actually performed by the contractor with the work of small business subcontractors does not count), eventually getting an SBA Certificate of Competency.

The GAO's response to that was:

[the] Air Force’s determination that [the apparent winner's] proposal failed to comply with a material term of the solicitation (the subcontracting limitation) and, [thus] could not form the basis for award under the RFP, the agency should have found [their] proposal to be unacceptable, rather than finding [them] nonresponsible and forwarding the matter to the SBA for its consideration.

The SBA disagreed. It believes that whether or not a small business contractor will perform the contract is a responsibility issue. However, the GAO's "final" comment is:

the issue here does not concern whether a bidder or offeror can or will comply with the subcontracting limitation requirement during performance of the contract (where we recognize that the matter is one of responsibility) ...but
rather, whether the bidder or offeror has specifically taken exception to the subcontracting limitation requirement on the face of its bid or proposal.
Given that [this] circumstance involves the evaluation of a bid or proposal for compliance with a material term of the solicitation, the determination is one of responsiveness or acceptability, rather than responsibility.

It is simply a matter of the contractor meeting the requirements in the RFP.