[Request for Reconsideration of Protest Concerning Army Cancellation of RFP]

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision which denied its protest that the Army improperly cancelled a solicitation after performing a cost comparison to determine whether a contract should be awarded for required services. The protester contended that: (1) the Army improperly included overtime work in the solicitation that actually represented backlog work, thus misleading the protester into bidding twice on the same work or bidding at overtime rates on work it would perform during regular hours; (2) the solicitation estimate of the amount of overtime work included both regular overtime work and emergency overtime work instead of just emergency work, as specified; (3) the Army misrepresented staffing changes in preparing its cost estimate for in-house performance; and (4) the Army substantially underestimated the amount of overtime work to be performed. GAO held that: (1) the portion of the reconsideration request alleging that the Army included backlog work as overtime was untimely filed; (2) while the solicitation was misleading as to the nature of the required overtime, the protester was not prejudiced by the error; (3) the Army adequately demonstrated that staffing changes would increase efficiency; and (4) the alleged underestimate represented functions that were not covered by the solicitation. Accordingly, the original decision was affirmed.