[Protest of Partial Cancellation of Army Solicitation for Batteries]

Two firms protested the Army's partial cancellation of two solicitations for batteries. The first protester contended that: (1) the Army had no compelling reason to cancel a line item under one solicitation; and (2) if cancellation was warranted, the Army should have cancelled the entire solicitation to avoid an improper auction. Both protesters contended that the Army should have cancelled the entire second solicitation because the awardee for the uncancelled item gained a competitive advantage under the partial cancellation. GAO held that: (1) the Army's decision to obtain the items through a competitive procurement was reasonable; (2) the Army's cancellation of the items was consistent with procurement regulation and did not result in an improper auction; (3) the protesters were not prejudiced by the Army's decision not to cancel both items, since they elected not to compete for the uncancelled item; and (4) maintaining the integrity of the competitive bidding system outweighed any possible competitive advantage to the awardee. Accordingly, the protests were denied.