[Request for Reconsideration of Protest of Army Contract Award]
Highlights
A firm requested reconsideration of its dismissed protest of an Army contract award for automatic data processing equipment and software. GAO had held that the protester untimely filed its protest against the Army's improper evaluation of the awardee's bid. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that even though its protest was untimely, it should be considered under the significant-issue exception, since the contracting officer's actions were improper. GAO held that it would not consider the protest under the significant-issue exception, since the issue was not of widespread interest to the procurement community. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was denied.
B-215662.4, DEC 3, 1984, 84-2 CPD 603
CONTRACTS - NEGOTIATION - REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS - CANCELLATION - MINIMUM NEEDS ERRONEOUSLY STATED DIGEST: 1. AGENCY'S DECISION TO CANCEL RFP WAS PROPER WHERE AGENCY DETERMINED THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE RFP OVERSTATED ITS MINIMUM NEEDS. CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - MOOT, ACADEMIC, ETC. QUESTIONS - FUTURE PROCUREMENTS 2. GAO WILL NOT CONSIDER A PROTEST AGAINST THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A FUTURE PROCUREMENT.
AVIATION ENTERPRISES, INC.-- RECONSIDERATION:
AVIATION ENTERPRISES, INC. (AVIATION), REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION IN AVIATION ENTERPRISES, INC., B-215662.3, OCT. 29, 1984, 84-2 CPD ---, IN WHICH WE DISMISSED AVIATION'S PROTEST AGAINST THE AIR FORCE'S CANCELLATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. F04735-84-R 0004 ISSUED TO LEASE AIRCRAFT.
OUR DECISION NOTED THAT THE AIR FORCE GAVE TWO CONFLICTING REASONS WHY IT CANCELED THE RFP-- THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE RESTRICTIVE AND THAT THE AIR FORCE NO LONGER HAD A NEED TO LEASE AIRCRAFT. WE DISMISSED AVIATION'S PROTEST ON THE BASIS THAT AN AGENCY MAY PROPERLY CANCEL A SOLICITATION WHEN IT FINDS THAT IT DOES NOT NEED THE REQUESTED ITEM.
IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, AVIATION HAS SUPPLIED INFORMATION WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THE AIR FORCE STILL HAS A NEED TO LEASE AIRCRAFT AND INTENDS IN THE FUTURE TO ISSUE AN RFP TO MEET THIS NEED. THE AIR FORCE HAS INFORMALLY CONFIRMED THIS INFORMATION AND HAS REASSERTED ITS POSITION THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE CANCELED RFP ARE RESTRICTIVE. SINCE PROCURING AGENCY'S ARE REQUIRED TO CANCEL SOLICITATIONS WHICH CONTAIN SPECIFICATIONS THAT OVERSTATE THE AGENCY'S MINIMUM NEEDS, OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE AGENCY PROPERLY CANCELED THE RFP IS AFFIRMED. JARRETT S. BLANKENSHIP CO., B-211582, OCT. 31, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 516.
INSOFAR AS AVIATION STATES THAT, IN RESPONSE TO AVIATION'S REQUEST, THE AIR FORCE WAS UNABLE TO STATE WHAT ITS MINIMUM NEEDS ARE, WE PRESUME THAT THE AIR FORCE IS REVISING ITS REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THESE NEEDS WILL BE SPECIFIED WHEN THE FUTURE SOLICITATION FOR THE AIRCRAFT IS ISSUED.
FINALLY, AVIATION ALLEGES THAT THE AIR FORCE CANCELED THE RFP TO ACCOMMODATE THE GATES LEARJET AIRCRAFT AND A NEW SOLICITATION WILL RESULT IN A SOLE SOURCE-CONTRACT FOR GATES LEARJET. THIS PROJECT BASIS CONCERNS A FUTURE PROCUREMENT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES ARE RESERVED FOR DETERMINATIONS WHETHER AN AWARD OR PROPOSED AWARD COMPLIES WITH STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND WE WILL DISMISS AS PREMATURE A PROTEST WHICH CHALLENGES THE POSSIBILITY OF A FUTURE SOLE-SOURCE AWARD. BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES, B-209234, MAR. 29, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 323. AVIATION MAY PROTEST AGAINST SPECIFICATIONS IN A NEW SOLICITATION WHEN IT IS ISSUED.
OUR PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.