The Borenstein Group, Inc.
Highlights
The Borenstein Group, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91WAW-07-R-0063, issued by the Contracting Center of Excellence (CCE) on behalf of the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve (OCAR) for management, manpower, and logistics support for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Army Reserve. The Borenstein Group contends that the decision to cancel the solicitation lacked a reasonable basis. The Borenstein Group also contends that the procurement of this requirement through an existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract is outside the scope of that contract.
B-309751, The Borenstein Group, Inc., September 26, 2007
Decision
Matter of: The Borenstein Group, Inc.
Gal Borenstein for the protester.
Capt. John Pritchard, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Eric M. Ransom and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency had a reasonable basis to cancel request for proposals for management, manpower, and logistics support where the record shows that the agency's requirements could be fulfilled through an existing contract determined to be more advantageous to the government.
DECISION
The Borenstein Group, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91WAW-07-R-0063, issued by the Contracting Center of Excellence (CCE) on behalf of the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve (OCAR) for management, manpower, and logistics support for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Army Reserve. The Borenstein Group contends that the decision to cancel the solicitation lacked a reasonable basis. The Borenstein Group also contends that the procurement of this requirement through an existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract is outside the scope of that contract.
BACKGROUND
OCAR created the overall concept of the Army Reserve Commemoration Program (Program) to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Army Reserve, and broadly identified a requirement to support the Program in December 2006. On
Meanwhile, between December 2006 and April 2007, OCAR developed a more specific list of deliverables for the Program and, on April 12, requested that CCE procure the necessary contractor support. AR, Tab 4, at 1. OCAR suggests that it submitted this request to CCE, rather than CECOM, because, due to changes in OCAR personnel, it was not aware of the possibility of using the CECOM WAA contract for these specific deliverables at the time.[1] AR at 2-3. Later that month, OCAR and CCE issued a sources sought synopsis for the management, manpower, and logistics support requirement, requesting capabilities statements from small businesses. AR, Tab 9.
Sometime in late April or early May, OCAR discovered that all of its Program deliverables might be within the scope of CECOM's WAA contract, AR, Tab 5, at 1, and, on May 14, requested that CECOM issue an RFTO under the WAA contract for the management, manpower, and logistics support requirement. AR, Tab 10. Shortly thereafter, on June 7, CCE proceeded with the negotiated procurement by issuing the RFP as a small business set-aside. Later in June, however, OCAR began to reconsider continuing the CCE negotiated procurement, in light of the CECOM RFTO. After giving consideration to the ability of the WAA contractor to begin immediately, and the WAA contractor's past performance, management approach, and experience, OCAR determined that meeting its requirements through the existing WAA contract would be more advantageous to the government, and that the CCE RFP should be cancelled.
On June 26, OCAR requested feedback from CECOM on whether the Program requirements being sought were within the scope of the WAA contract. The CECOM Procuring Contracting Officer responded with a preliminary determination that the deliverables were within scope. AR, Tab 15, at 1. OCAR then contacted the CCE contracting officer, and based on that communication, determined that cancellation of the CCE RFP was reasonable. AR, Tab 16, at 1. On June 26, OCAR requested that CCE cancel the RFP, and CCE did so on July 7.
DISCUSSION
The Borenstein Group first protests that the agency's decision to cancel the RFP lacked a reasonable basis. The agency argues that it had a reasonable basis to cancel the RFP because it discovered that its requirements could be met through an existing contract, and ultimately determined that using the existing contract for the requirements was in the best interest of the government.
In a negotiated procurement, an agency has broad authority to decide whether to cancel a solicitation, and to do so need only establish a reasonable basis. VSE Corp., B-290452.2,
In this case, OCAR discovered that an existing contract encompassed its requirements, determined that the existing contract was more advantageous than continuing with the planned negotiated procurement, and on that basis cancelled the RFP. We conclude that OCAR's decision had a reasonable basis.[3] Although it is unfortunate that an apparent lack of coordination at OCAR prevented this RFP from being cancelled earlier, an agency properly may cancel a solicitation no matter when the information precipitating the cancellation first surfaces or should have been known, even if the cancellation occurs after proposals have been submitted. Daston Corp., B-292583, B-292583.2,
The Borenstein Group also argues that any procurement of the Program requirements through the WAA contract is outside the scope of that contract. We disagree.[4]
The WAA contract is a strategic public relations support contract that covers a wide variety of advertising, promotional, and publicity programs. WAA Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The SOW lists 13 performance-based contract objectives, including the development of activities designed to obtain supportive publicity, and the [d]evelopment and execution of event/promotional programs intended to extend the advertising message . . . and create useful opportunities for recruiter interaction . . . . WAA SOW at 1-2. We think that the requirements reflected in the CCE RFP, which included the goals of improved recognition of the Army Reserve, increased appreciation for the Army Reserve, and improved recruiting and retention for the Army Reserve, fall squarely within the scope of the WAA contract.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] We are not convinced that this was the case. We note that the same individual was the OCAR point of contact on RFTO 07-003 and the April 12 CCE purchase request, and presumably would have been familiar with the existence and scope of the WAA contract. However, the issue of why OCAR pursued parallel contracting strategies is not material to the decision in this case.
[2] We have also found, in the sealed bidding context, that the discovery of an existing contract for the requirement meets the compelling reason standard for upholding a post-bid opening cancellation of an invitation for bids. See Colonial Lock Supply Co., B-265645,
[3] The protester also suggests that OCAR's decision to procure the requirement through the WAA contract undermines small business interests. The fact that the cancelled solicitation was a small business set-aside does not factor into the analysis; the standard is simply whether the decision to cancel the solicitation had a reasonable basis.
[4] The protester seems to believe that the agency will be acquiring the services under Task Order 14, and argues that the agency's requirements fall outside the scope of that task order. In fact, the agency is not attempting to add the Program requirements to Task Order 14, rather, it plans to award a new task order under the WAA contract, separate and distinct from RFTO 07-003/Task Order 14. AR at 5.