[Protest of Cancellation of Request for Proposals]

A firm protested the cancellation of a request for proposals issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for photocopying services. Based on a cost comparison, HUD determined that it would be less costly to retain the photocopying services in-house. The protester asserted that the cost comparison was inaccurate, a solicitation requirement was unduly restrictive, and HUD improperly rejected its alternative proposals as technically unacceptable. When an agency specifies the circumstances under which a contract will be awarded, GAO will review an allegation that the agency did not follow established cost comparison procedures only if the impropriety materially affected the outcome of the cost comparison. In this case, GAO did not find that HUD failed to follow established cost comparison procedures or that it failed to provide a rational basis for its cost determinations. Although the protester challenged the inclusion of certain costs, GAO found little evidence to support its position, and this ground of protest was denied. Since bid protest procedures require that protests based upon alleged solicitation improprieties apparent prior to bid opening be filed prior to that date, the protest concerning a restrictive specification was untimely and not for consideration. A question concerning the rejection of one alternate proposal was academic, because it would still have exceeded the cost of in-house performance. GAO found an allegation concerning the other alternate proposal to be untimely, since it was not filed within 10 working days after the basis for protest was known. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.