B-224421.2 B-224421.3 B-224421.4 B-224421.5, NOV 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD 582

B-224421.2,B-224421.5,B-224421.3,B-224421.4: Nov 18, 1986

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WILL CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE WHETHER AGENCY HAS REASONABLE BASIS TO CANCEL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHERE THE PRICES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND PRICE IS THE SOLE AWARD SELECTION CRITERIA. WHERE THE AGENCY TERMINATES NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS AWARDED TO TWO MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS BECAUSE THE AWARDS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS' EVALUATION CRITERIA. " EVEN WHERE THIS DECISION IS FIRST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE RESOLICITATION. THE RFP WAS RESTRICTED TO THE THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES: FORD. TWO AWARDS WERE "CONTEMPLATED ON A 60-PERCENT. THE TOTAL EVALUATED PRICES OF THE OFFERORS (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION AND GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY RENTAL EVALUATION FACTORS) WERE: TABLE OMITTED: THE ARMY AWARDED THE 60-PERCENT QUANTITY TO FORD BECAUSE IT WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR FOR THAT QUANTITY AND AWARDED THE 40-PERCENT QUANTITY TO HONEYWELL BECAUSE IT WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR OTHER THAN FORD FOR THAT QUANTITY.

B-224421.2 B-224421.3 B-224421.4 B-224421.5, NOV 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD 582

PROCUREMENT - COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION - REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS - CANCELLATION - JUSTIFICATION - GAO REVIEW DIGEST: 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WILL CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE WHETHER AGENCY HAS REASONABLE BASIS TO CANCEL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHERE THE PRICES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND PRICE IS THE SOLE AWARD SELECTION CRITERIA. PROCUREMENT - COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION - REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS - EVALUATION CRITERIA - MULTIPLE/AGGREGATE AWARDS - BEST-BUY ANALYSIS 2. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, WHICH PROVIDES FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS TO LOWEST COMBINATION OF AWARDS, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AWARD TO THE LOW OFFEROR ON THE LARGEST QUANTITY, IF THE RESULTING COMBINATION OF AWARDS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. AGENCY'S PAST PRACTICES AND UNSTATED EVALUATION INTENT CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT THIS UNAMBIGUOUS CRITERIA TO ALLOW AN AWARD AT OTHER THAN THE OVERALL COST. PROCUREMENT - COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION - REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS - CANCELLATION - RESOLICITATION - PROPRIETY 3. WHERE THE AGENCY TERMINATES NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS AWARDED TO TWO MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS BECAUSE THE AWARDS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS' EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND RESOLICITS THE REQUIREMENTS, INSTEAD OF MAKING THE PROPER AWARDS, THE RESOLICITATION CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY THE AGENCY DECISION TO MAKE THREE AWARDS FOR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED QUANTITIES OF THE MOBILIZATION BASE ITEMS IN ORDER TO KEEP ALL THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS "WARM," EVEN WHERE THIS DECISION IS FIRST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE RESOLICITATION.

FORD AEROSPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; HONEYWELL, INC.; AEROJET ORDNANCE COMPANY:

FORD AEROSPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (FORD), HONEYWELL, INC., (HONEYWELL), AND AEROJET ORDNANCE COMPANY (AREOJET) PROTEST THE CANCELLATION OF A PROCUREMENT OF A QUANTITY OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) DAA099-86-R-0708, ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY ARMAMENT, MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS. WE DENY THE PROTESTS.

THE RFP WAS RESTRICTED TO THE THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES: FORD, HONEYWELL AND AEROJET. UNDER THE RFP, TWO AWARDS WERE "CONTEMPLATED ON A 60-PERCENT, 40-PERCENT SHARING RATIO" AND "ALL ITEMS WITHIN THE 60/40 SPLIT WOULD BE AWARDED AS A UNIT TO ONE OF THE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS." THE RFP FURTHER PROVIDED THAT:

"... THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT COMBINATION OF AWARDS DETERMINED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED. ..."

THE TOTAL EVALUATED PRICES OF THE OFFERORS (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION AND GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY RENTAL EVALUATION FACTORS) WERE:

TABLE OMITTED:

THE ARMY AWARDED THE 60-PERCENT QUANTITY TO FORD BECAUSE IT WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR FOR THAT QUANTITY AND AWARDED THE 40-PERCENT QUANTITY TO HONEYWELL BECAUSE IT WAS THE LOWEST OFFEROR OTHER THAN FORD FOR THAT QUANTITY.

AFTER THE AWARDS, AEROJET, UPON REQUEST, WAS APPRISED OF THE PROPOSED AND EVALUATED PRICES UNDER THE RFP. (SHORTY THEREAFTER, ALL OFFERORS WERE SIMILARLY APPRISED.) AEROJET THEN PROTESTED THE AWARDS TO OUR OFFICE. AEROJET CONTENDS, AND THE RECORD CONFIRMS, THAT IF AEROJET WERE AWARDED THE 60-PERCENT PORTION AND FORD THE 40-PERCENT PORTION, THE COMBINED AWARDS WOULD BE $808,560.48 LESS THAN THE FORD'S 60-PERCENT AWARD AMOUNT PLUS HONEYWELL'S 40-PERCENT AWARD AMOUNT. AEROJET ASSERTS THAT THE RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT AWARD BE MADE FOR THE LOWEST COMBINED DOLLAR AMOUNT, EVEN IF THE LOWEST OFFEROR ON THE LARGER 60-PERCENT QUANTITY DID NOT RECEIVE THAT AWARD.

IN RESPONSE TO AEROJET'S PROTEST, THE ARMY TERMINATED FORD'S AND HONEYWELL'S CONTRACTS AND STATED THAT IT PLANNED TO RESOLICIT THESE REQUIREMENTS. OUR OFFICE DISMISSED AEROJET'S PROTEST AS ACADEMIC; FORD AND HONEYWELL THEN PROTESTED THE ARMY'S TERMINATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS.

THE ARMY ARGUES THAT IT HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO RESOLICIT THESE REQUIREMENTS, RATHER THAN MAKE AWARDS UNDER THE RFP, BECAUSE THE RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA WERE AMBIGUOUS IN SETTING FORTH THE INTENDED BASES FOR AWARD. THE ARMY INTENDED TO, AND ACTUALLY DID, AWARD THE 60 PERCENT PORTION TO THE LOW BIDDER FOR THE QUANTITY, ELIMINATED THAT OFFEROR FROM AWARD CONSIDERATION FOR THE 40-PERCENT PORTION, AND AWARDED THE 40-PERCENT QUANTITY TO THE LOWER PRICED OF THE REMAINING OFFERORS. THE ARMY STATES THAT IF IT HAD BEEN AWARE THAT THESE TOTAL AWARDS DID NOT REPRESENT THE LOWEST OVERALL COST IT WOULD HAVE AWARDED THE 60-PERCENT QUANTITY AND NEGOTIATED WITH THE REMAINING OFFERORS ON THE 40-PERCENT PORTION. HOWEVER, THE ARMY FOUND THAT THIS SCHEME WAS NOT STATED AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA. ALSO, THE ARMY WAS UNAWARE THAT THE AWARDS DID NOT RESULT IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. FINALLY, THE ARMY ARGUES THAT AN AWARD TO AEROJET OF THE 60- PERCENT PORTION REPRESENTS AN UNACCEPTABLE $2,236,921.32 PREMIUM OVER FORD'S LOW PRICE FOR THAT QUANTITY.

FORD AND HONEYWELL CONTEND THAT THE RFP WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THAT THE AWARDS WERE PROPER. THEY NOTE THAT SOLICITATIONS FOR PREVIOUS YEARS' 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGE MOBILIZATION BASE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY SET OUT THE EVALUATION SCHEME THAT WAS INTENDED BY THE ARMY IN THIS CASE. FORD AND HONEYWELL ASSERT THAT ALL THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS WERE AWARE OF THE ARMY'S SPECIFIC EVALUATION INTENT WHEN THEY PROPOSED ON THIS RFP. FORD ARGUES THAT THE VAGUE GENERAL EVALUATION CRITERIA OF THE RFP, IN QUESTION HERE, MUST BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE SPECIFIC INTENDED EVALUATION SCHEME OF THE ARMY AS EVIDENCED BY ITS PAST PRACTICE. FORD AND HONEYWELL CONCLUDED THAT THE RFP, AS CLARIFIED BY THE ARMY'S EVALUATION INTENT, WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THAT ANY RESOLICITATION WILL CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER AUCTION.

FORD ALSO PROTESTS THAT THE DISCLOSURE TO AEROJET BY THE ARMY OF BOTH FORD'S 60-PERCENT QUANTITY AWARD PRICE AND, PARTICULARLY, THE UNAWARDED 40 -PERCENT QUANTITY PRICE WAS IMPROPER SINCE THIS WAS CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION. FORD CLAIMS THAT THIS DISCLOSURE PREJUDICED FORD ON THE PLANNED RESOLICITATION AND FATALLY TAINTS THE ARMY'S TERMINATION OF FORD'S CONTRACT.

AEROJET, ALSO PROTESTING THE CANCELLATION, ASSERTS THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE AWARD OF THE 60-PERCENT QUANTITY AND FORD THE 40 PERCENT AWARD UNDER THE RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA, SINCE THIS REPRESENTED THE LOWEST PRICED COMBINATION OF AWARDS BY $808,560.48. AEROJET ASSERTS THAT THE RFP EVALUATION SCHEME WAS UNAMBIGUOUS IN THIS REGARD, AND THAT THE AWARD SELECTION SCHEME IN PREVIOUS YEARS' SOLICITATIONS AND THE ARMY'S UNSTATED EVALUATION INTENT CANNOT BE USED TO MAKE THE AWARD SELECTION IN THIS CASE. AEROJET ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE ARMY HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO RESOLICIT THIS REQUIREMENT SIMPLY TO FORMULATE A NEW EVALUATION SCHEME, SINCE THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER AUCTION, NO OFFERORS WERE COMPETITIVELY PREJUDICED BY THE WAY THE EVALUATION SCHEME WAS STATED IN THE RFP AND PROPER AWARDS UNDER THE RFP WILL SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. AEROJET CONTENDS THAT THE ARMY'S RELIANCE ON THE FACT THAT AWARD OF THE 60-PERCENT QUANTITY TO AEROJET WOULD BE AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE THAN FORD'S PRICE FOR THAT QUANTITY TO JUSTIFY THE RESOLICITATION IS UNREASONABLE, SINCE THE STATED RFP AWARD EVALUATION SCHEME INTEGRATED THE AWARDS OF BOTH THE 60 PERCENT AND 40-PERCENT QUANTITIES AND THE PROPER AWARD COMBINATION WOULD REPRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. AEROJET FINALLY CONTENDS THAT ANY AWARD SCHEME RESULTING IN AWARDS AT OTHER THAN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD VIOLATE THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 2305(B)(4)(A)(II) (SUPP. III 1985), ON PROCUREMENTS WHERE PRICE IS THE SOLE BASIS FOR AWARD SELECTION.

CONTRACTING AGENCIES HAVE BROAD DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CANCEL A SOLICITATION. IN A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NEED ONLY HAVE A "REASONABLE BASIS" FOR CANCELLATION AFTER RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS, AS OPPOSED TO THE "COGENT AND COMPELLING" REASON REQUIRED FOR CANCELLATION OF A SEALED BID OR FORMALLY ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT AFTER BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED. SEE ALLIED REPAIR SERVICE, INC., 62 COMP.GEN. 100 (1982), 82-2 CPD PARA. 541; CADRE TECHNICAL INC., HUBBARD ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., B-221430, B-221430.2, MAR. 14, 1986, 86-1 CPD PARA. 256. WE HAVE STATED THAT THE REASONS FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STANDARDS FOR CANCELING SEALED BID AND NEGOTIATED SOLICITATIONS IS THAT THE RELATIVE COMPETITIVE POSITIONS OF THE BIDDERS IS PUBLICLY EXPOSED IN SEALED BID PROCUREMENTS, WHICH ORDINARILY DOES NOT OCCUR ON NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT. ALLIED REPAIR SERVICE, INC., 62 COMP.GEN., SUPRA, AT 101. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HELD THAT EVEN IF PRICE IS THE SOLE EVALUATION CRITERION ON A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT AND THE PRICES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED, AN AGENCY NEED ONLY SHOW A REASONABLE BASIS TO CANCEL THE RFP AND RESOLICIT. RODGERS-CAULTON, BARTON-CURETON, INC., B-220329, JAN. 6, 1986, 86-1 CPD PARA. 11. NEVERTHELESS, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE REASONS FOR THE CANCELLATION TO ASCERTAIN THAT THEY INDEED FORM A REASONABLE BASIS IN VIEW OF THE POTENTIAL AUCTION ATMOSPHERE OF A RESOLICITATION. SEE N. V. PHILLIPS GLOELLAMPENFABRIKEN, B-207485.3, MAY 3, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 467.

IN THIS CASE, THE ARMY PROPERLY TERMINATED FORD'S AND HONEYWELL'S CONTRACTS. AS CONTENDED BY AEROJET, THE AWARD EVALUATION SCHEME STATED IN THE RFP REQUIRED THE LOWEST PRICED COMBINATION OF AWARDS AND WAS UNAMBIGUOUS IN THIS REGARD. IN 50 COMP.GEN. 777 (1971), WE HELD THAT AN AGENCY WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE COMBINATION OF AWARDS REPRESENTING THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT ON A RFP SET-ASIDE FOR MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS CONTAINING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA TO THE RFP CRITERIA IN QUESTION HERE. IN THAT CASE, AS HERE, THE LOW OFFEROR ON THE LARGEST SHARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE AWARD OF THE QUANTITY, SINCE A DIFFERENT COMBINATION RESULTED IN THE LOWEST OVERALL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. ALSO, IN RIGHT AWAY FOODS CORP., B-219676.2, B-219676.3, FEB. 25, 1986, 86-1 CPD PARA. 192, INVOLVING AN RFP SET-ASIDE FOR MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS, WE REACHED THE SAME RESULT WHERE IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE RFP THAT AWARD WOULD BE FOR THE LOWEST PRICED COMBINATION OF AWARDS. SINCE THE RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA HERE HAD A SPECIFIC MEANING, IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR AN OFFEROR TO ASSUME THAT THE PAST EVALUATION PRACTICES, WHICH HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE PREVIOUS YEARS' SOLICITATIONS, WOULD BE EMPLOYED WHERE THEY WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE SOLICITATION.

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE ARMY'S JUSTIFICATION FOR RESOLICITING THE REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF MAKING AWARDS TO AEROJET AND FORD WAS REASONABLE, IN VIEW OF THE ARMY'S NEWLY DISCLOSED PLANS TO SATISFY ITS MOBILIZATION BASE REQUIREMENTS. WHEN IT TERMINATED FORD'S AND HONEYWELL'S CONTRACTS, THE ARMY HAD NOT FORMULATED THE DETAILS OF ITS PLANNED RESOLICITATION. DID ATTACH THE TERMINATED REQUIREMENTS TO AN ALREADY ISSUED RFP NO. DAAA09 -86-R-1320 (RFP-1320) FOR ANOTHER QUANTITY OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES, STATED THAT SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PROCUREMENT AND PROVIDED FOR TWO AWARDS. AFTER THE CONFERENCE AT OUR OFFICE THAT WAS HELD ON THIS PROTEST, THE ARMY FURTHER ELABORATED ON ITS PLANS. THE ARMY NOW PLANS TO MODIFY THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF AWARDS, SO AS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP ALL THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS "WARM" AND TO RESTRUCTURE THE PERCENTAGE SPLIT BETWEEN THE MULTIPLE AWARDEES FOR THIS "SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED" QUANTITY OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES. THE ARMY CLAIMS THAT SUCH A RESTRUCTURED PROCUREMENT WILL AVOID THE AUCTION ATMOSPHERE CAUSED BY THE EXPOSURE OF THE PRICES.

THE ARMY'S RESOLICITATION PLANS ARE PART OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO MANAGE THE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCER PROGRAM. THE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCER PROGRAM ENCOMPASSES PLANNING WITH POSSIBLE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS OF CRITICAL ITEMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WILL NEED FOR MOBILIZATION IN PREPARING FOR WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY, SO AS TO ASSURE CAPABILITY FOR THE SUSTAINED PRODUCTION OF SUCH ESSENTIAL MILITARY ITEMS. WAYNE H. COLONEY, 64 COMP.GEN. 760 (1985); 85-1 CPD PARA. 186; AMERICAN AIR FILTER COMPANY, INC., 55 COMP.GEN. 703, 705 (1976), 76-1 CPD PARA. 73. CONSEQUENTLY, DECISIONS ON HOW MANY PLANNED PRODUCERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED AS MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM INVOLVE COMPLEX TECHNICAL AND MILITARY JUDGEMENTS, WHICH MUST BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE MILITARY AGENCIES. MARTIN ELECTRONICS, INC., 65 COMP.GEN. 59 (1985), 85-2 CPD PARA. 504; RIGHT AWAY FOODS CORPS., B-219676.2, B-219676.3, SUPRA; LISTER BOLT & CHAIN LTD., B-224473, SEPT. 15, 1986, 86-2 CPD PARA. ***. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ARMY'S PLANS TO KEEP ALL THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS "WARM" IN THE PROCUREMENT OF THE "SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED" QUANTITY OF 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGES CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE BASIS TO RESOLICIT THIS REQUIREMENT.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE ARMY DID NOT HAVE THIS INTENT WHEN IT TERMINATED THE CONTRACT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE HELD THAT ANY INFORMATION RELATING TO WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT REASON TO CANCEL A SOLICITATION CAN BE CONSIDERED NO MATTER WHEN THE INFORMATION WHICH JUSTIFIES THE CANCELLATION FIRST SURFACES. PROGRAM RESOURCES INC., B-215210, SEPT. 25, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 356; CHRYSLER CORP., B-206943, SEPT. 24, 1982, 82-2 CPD PARA. 271. THIS IS SO EVEN WHERE THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR THE CANCELLATION ACTION WERE NOT REASONABLE AND THE NEW REASONS JUSTIFYING THE CANCELLATION WERE ONLY FIRST RAISED BY THE PROCURING AGENCY IN RESPONSE TO A PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE. SEE CARRIER CORP., B-214331, AUG. 1, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 197.

WE FURTHER RECOGNIZE THAT THE ARMY COULD HAVE MADE THE AWARDS UNDER THE RFP TO AEROJET AND FORD AND THAT THE THIRD PRODUCER'S MOBILIZATION BASE REQUIREMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN SATISFIED OUT OF RFP-1320 AND/OR FURTHER REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE DETERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS AND THE BEST METHOD OF ACCOMMODATING THEM ARE PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. KISCO CO., INC., B-216953, MAR. 22, 1985, 85-1 CPD PARA. 334. SINCE THE ARMY, IN ITS DISCRETION, HAD DETERMINED THAT ALL THREE MOBILIZATION BASE PRODUCERS MUST BE KEPT "WARM," COMBINING THE TERMINATED QUANTITIES WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S OTHER 25 MILLIMETER CARTRIDGE REQUIREMENTS APPEARS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. OTHERWISE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PRODUCER ON THIS RFP WOULD HAVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AND AN INSIDE TRACK TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL QUANTITIES. MOREOVER, THE AUCTION ATMOSPHERE IN THIS CASE WILL BE MITIGATED BY THE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED QUANTITIES, THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND THE RESTRUCTURED EVALUATION SCHEME. SEE N. V. PHILIPS GLOELLAMPENFABRIKEN, B-207485.3, SUPRA, AT 14-15. FINALLY, FORD ARGUES THAT THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ARMY OF ITS PROPOSAL PRICES TO AEROJET CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND VIOLATED FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION, SUBPART 15.10, 48 C.F.R. SUBPART 15.10 (1985), THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 552 (1982), AND POSSIBLY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1905 (1982). FORD CONTENDS THAT THIS WRONGFUL RELEASE TAINTS ANY PLANNED RESOLICITATION AND REQUESTS THAT THE ARMY BE DIRECTED TO REINSTATED FORD'S 60-PERCENT AWARD.

WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCLOSURE OF FORD'S PRICES WAS IMPROPER-- WHICH WE DO NOT DECIDE-- THE FACT REMAINS THAT FORD'S AWARD WAS INCONSISTENT WITH RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA. THEREFORE, THE ONLY PREJUDICE SUFFERED BY FORD, OTHER THAN THE PROPER TERMINATION OF ITS CONTRACT, WAS THE ADVERSE AFFECT THAT THE EXPOSURE OF ITS PRICES WOULD HAVE ON THE RESOLICITATION. HOWEVER, ALL THREE OFFERORS' PRICES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, WHICH WE HAVE FOUND IS AN APPROPRIATE MITIGATION OF THIS POTENTIAL PREJUDICE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN ASSUMING THE INITIAL DISCLOSURE OF FORD'S PRICES WAS IMPROPER. SEE TM SYSTEMS, INC., 55 COMP.GEN. 1066, 1069 (1976), 76-1 CPD PARA. 299; AXEL AND DEUTSCHMANN, B-187798, MAY 12, 1977, 77-1 CPD PARA. 399 AT 5 (INVOLVING REOPENING DISCUSSIONS AFTER PRICES WERE DISCLOSED). ALSO, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE AUCTION ATMOSPHERE WILL BE SOMEWHAT LESSENED BY THE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED QUANTITIES AND RESTRUCTURED EVALUATION SCHEME.

THE PROTESTS ARE DENIED. FORD AND HONEYWELL, ALTERNATIVELY, CLAIM THEIR PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS. HOWEVER, SINCE THEIR PROTESTS ARE DENIED, THESE CLAIMS ARE DENIED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.6(D) (1986).