[Protests of Navy's Cancellation of IFB and Resolicitation]

Two firms protested the Navy's cancellation of an invitation for bids (IFB) and the subsequent resolicitation of the requirement. The contracting officer determined that, because two work schedules contained inaccurate work estimates, it would be in the government's best interest to cancel the entire solicitation. The first protester argued that cancellation was improper since: (1) there was no information to base revised estimates upon that was not available prior to bid opening; (2) the Navy offered inadequate rationale for its proposed revisions; and (3) the proposed revisions would change the total contract by an insignificant amount. The first protester further alleged that the estimated quantities in the resolicitation were overstated. The second protester contended that it was improper to cancel the third schedule of the IFB since it contained no errors. GAO held that: (1) an agency may cancel a solicitation regardless of when the precipitating information surfaces; (2) the first protester did not meet its burden of proving that the government lacked a reasonable basis for its revised estimates; (3) there was substantial doubt that award of the original contract would result in the lowest cost to the government; (4) the first protester would not be prejudiced by the alleged error in the resolicitation; and (5) the second protester's allegation was academic since it was awarded the contract under the resolicitation. Accordingly, one firm's protests were denied and the other firm's protest was dismissed.