Eastman Kodak Company

B-271009 May 08, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was unreasonably canceled. Firms were to provide pricing for 10 high-speed copier machines in accordance with various minimum specifications. One component of the maintenance pricing was a basic copy allowance. Kodak's was the lowest-priced. That the stated method of evaluating the copy usage cost was not in the best interest of the government. That the agency should have used a best value approach to the acquisition. After the solicitation was canceled. The fact that the cancellation occurred after Kodak was identified as the awardee does not by itself evidence that the cancellation was improper. An agency may properly cancel a solicitation no matter when the information precipitating the cancellation first surfaces or should have been known. View Decision Matter of: Eastman Kodak Company File: B-271009 Date: May 8, 1996 Contracting agency reasonably canceled a request for quotations where it determined--after reviewing an agency-level protest, the solicitation's specifications, and the quotations received--that the specifications might not reflect the agency's minimum needs, and where relaxed specifications might result in cost savings, as well as increased competition. Attorneys DECISION Eastman Kodak Company protests that request for quotations (RFQ) No. DTOS59-96-Q-3030, issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for copier equipment, was unreasonably canceled. We deny the protest. The RFQ requested quotations for copier equipment and maintenance under a multiple award Federal Supply Schedule contract. Firms were to provide pricing for 10 high-speed copier machines in accordance with various minimum specifications, as well as pricing for maintaining the copiers over a 60-month period. One component of the maintenance pricing was a basic copy allowance, expressed in terms of cents per page at a given number of pages--this component would be evaluated on the basis of 150,000 copies per machine, per month. Award would be made to the firm quoting the lowest overall price. DOT determined that three of the seven quotations submitted did not meet the RFQ's minimum specifications. Of the remaining four quotations, Kodak's was the lowest-priced. The contracting officer prepared and signed a purchase order to Kodak but, on that same day, DOT received an agency-level protest from one of the unsuccessful vendors complaining that certain specifications unduly restricted competition. [1] The director of acquisition services instructed the contracting officer not to make award to Kodak, and began a review of the matter. After meeting with the program office and procurement staff, and reviewing the protest and the RFQ's specifications, he concluded that those specifications might be too restrictive; that the stated method of evaluating the copy usage cost was not in the best interest of the government; and that the agency should have used a best value approach to the acquisition. After the solicitation was canceled, Kodak filed this protest. A contracting agency need only establish a reasonable basis to support a decision to cancel an RFQ. Shasta Transfer & Storage, B-261172, July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 48; Tony Ingoglia Salami and Cheese, Inc., B-244452, Sept. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 268. A reasonable basis to cancel exists when a new solicitation presents the potential for increased competition or cost savings. G.K.S. Inc., 68 Comp.Gen. 589 (1989), 89-2 CPD para. 117; Bell Indus., Inc., B-233029, Jan. 25, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 81. The fact that the cancellation occurred after Kodak was identified as the awardee does not by itself evidence that the cancellation was improper; an agency may properly cancel a solicitation no matter when the information precipitating the cancellation first surfaces or should have been known, even if the solicitation is not canceled until after quotations have been submitted and evaluated. [2] See PAI Corp. et al., B-244287.5 et al., Nov. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 508. The record shows that the agency's justifications for canceling the solicitation were reasonably based. An agency may cancel a solicitation if it materially overstates the agency's requirements and the agency desires to obtain enhanced competition by relaxing the requirements. HBD Indus., Inc., B-242010.2, Apr. 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 400. DOT's review of the agency-level protest and the RFQ's specifications raised concerns that those specifications might overstate the agency's minimum needs. The unsuccessful vendor questioned the justification for requiring the copiers to have an automatic computer forms feeder, considering that they will be used in a walk-up copy center environment, as well as the requirement that the copiers produce 85 copies per minute--the vendor asserted that DOT's copier manager had told the firm that 75 copies per minute met the agency's needs.