[Protest of Army Decision To Cancel RFP]

A firm protested the Army's cancellation of a request for proposals (RFP) for the operation and maintenance of utility systems and maintenance of plant equipment, buildings, and grounds at a facility. The RFP was issued as a cost comparison to determine whether it would be more economical to contract for services or to continue to perform them with in-house personnel. Although the Army found that the protester's proposal was more advantageous to the Government than other offers, it canceled the RFP after determining that it could perform the work in-house at a lower cost. The protester contended that it was entitled either to contract award or to proposal preparation costs. The protester argued that the Army both understated the cost of in-house performance and overestimated contracting costs. GAO review of such a protest is generally limited to the consideration of allegations that the agency conducted a faulty or misleading cost comparison. GAO only questions whether mandated procedures were followed since procedures are matters of policy. GAO concluded that the Army's cost comparison was not faulty or misleading and that the Army followed mandated procedures. GAO did not find that the protester was subjected to arbitrary or capricious treatment, which is a prerequisite to entitlement to proposal preparation costs and, therefore, the protester was not entitled to recover such costs. Accordingly, the protest and claim were denied.