We agree with the protester that there was no proper basis for withdrawing the small business set-aside here. Although the preference embodied in the RSA takes precedence over small business preferences, see Department of the Air Force--Recon., B-250465.6 et al., June 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD P: 431 at 13; see also Automated Communication Sys., Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 570, 578 (2001), the small business set-aside here need not be eliminated altogether in order to give effect to the RSA. Rather, we see no reason why the solicitation cannot be fashioned to accommodate both preferences. This approach is consistent with the Court of Federal Claims' (COFC) recent decision in Automated Communication. Sys., Inc. v. United States, supra, in which the court considered the interrelationship between the preferences afforded by the RSA and the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Act, 15 U.S.C. ¶ 657a (2000); FAR subpart 19.13.  (Intermark, Inc., B-290925, October 23, 2002) (pdf)

ACSI’s assumption that the preference for which it qualifies should preclude the Air Force from applying DoDD 1125.3 is mistaken where, as here, each preference statute can be fully implemented. There is no “conflict” requiring the CO to reconcile competing provisions. ACSI will receive the price preference to which it is entitled, and should TCB submit a bid and the CO decide to conduct negotiations, the TCB vendor will be given its priority should it qualify for the competitive range. Contrary to ACSI’s contentions, the preferences are not incompatible.  Each preference can be given its due. The fact that the RSA preference or priority,8 if triggered, is superior to the others, does not mean that the various preferences conflict.  The fact that one preference is of greater value than the others does not mean that each cannot be fully applied before the contract award is made. The court finds that such is the case here, and there is no inherent conflict between the competing preferences.  (Automated Communication Systems, Inc. d/b/a ASCI, v. U.S., No. 01-65C, June 22, 2001) (pdf)