B-205727.2, JUN 30, 1982

B-205727.2, JUN 30, 1982

DIGEST: 1. PRIOR DECISION DENYING A PROTEST THAT THE AGENCY IMPROPERLY CANCELED A SOLICITATION IS AFFIRMED WHERE THE BASIS FOR THE ORIGINAL DECISION IS NOT SHOWN TO BE ERRONEOUS. 2. REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE ON RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED WHERE THE MATTER CAN BE PROMPTLY RESOLVED WITHOUT A CONFERENCE.

PIONEER MOTOR INN - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

PIONEER MOTOR INN REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF PIONEER MOTOR INN, B-205727, MAY 17, 1982, 82-1 CPD 467, A DECISION IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PROPERLY CANCELED INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DAKF49-81-B-0049 BASED UPON ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE IFB'S SPECIFICATIONS WERE AMBIGUOUS, INADEQUATE AND MATERIALLY DEFECTIVE IN STATING THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MEALS, LODGING AND TRANSPORTATION FOR ARMY APPLICANTS AND ENLISTEES AT THE U. S. ARMED FORCES EXAMINING AND ENTRANCE STATION IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

WE AFFIRM THE PRIOR DECISION.

IN ESSENCE, PIONEER PRESENTS TWO ARGUMENTS: FIRST, THAT IT WAS THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER UNDER THE IFB, AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AWARD; AND SECOND, THAT THE DEFECTS IN THE IFB, CITED BY THE ARMY AS REASON FOR CANCELLATION, ARE NOT CORRECTED IN A NEW SOLICITATION RECENTLY ISSUED, SO THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO CANCEL THE FIRST IFB.

PIONEER'S ARGUMENT THAT IT SUBMITTED THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BID UNDER THE IFB IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY RECONSIDERATION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE IFB'S CANCELLATION SINCE THE ARMY MADE NO DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL BIDS PRIOR TO CANCELLING THE IFB. IN THIS REGARD, AFTER REVIEWING THE IFB AND THE ARMY'S ACTUAL MEAL, LODGING, AND TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE SO AMBIGUOUS AND INADEQUATE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE THE BIDS PROPERLY. THUS, THE ARMY REJECTED ALL BIDS, CANCELED THE IFB, AND RESOLICITED.

WE FIND NO MERIT IN PIONEER'S CONTENTION THAT THE DEFECTS, CITED BY THE ARMY AS REASON TO CANCEL THE IFB, ARE NOT CORRECTED IN THE RESOLICITATION. BASED ON OUR REVIEW AND COMPARISON OF THE CANCELED IFB AND THE RESOLICITATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ARMY HAS IN FACT SIGNIFICANTLY REVISED ITS SPECIFICATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS OF ITS ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MEALS, LODGING AND DINING FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NUMBER OF BREAKFASTS ESTIMATED TO BE FURNISHED PER YEAR IS REDUCED FROM 16,000 IN THE CANCELED IFB TO 9,956 IN THE RESOLICITATION, THE NUMBER OF DOUBLE ROOM LODGINGS REQUIRED IS REDUCED FROM AN ESTIMATED 17,900 TO 10,800 PER YEAR, AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION OF ARMY PERSONNEL REQUIRED BY THE CANCELED IFB IS ELIMINATED BY THE RESOLICITATION'S NOTICE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL FURNISH NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FROM THE LODGING FACILITY TO THE MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION.

WE NOTE THAT PIONEER ALSO REQUESTS A CONFERENCE PRIOR TO OUR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, HOWEVER, DO NOT EXPLICITLY PROVIDE FOR CONFERENCES UPON RECONSIDERATION. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9 (1982). IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PROCEDURES TO EFFECT PROMPT RESOLUTION OF RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AND WE BELIEVE A REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE THE MATTER CANNOT BE PROMPTLY RESOLVED WITHOUT A CONFERENCE. IN OUR JUDGMENT, THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. SEE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. - RECONSIDERATION, 56 COMP.GEN. 875 (1977), 77-2 CPD 97.

OUR PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.