Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc., B-

B-276571.2 Jul 17, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency's decision to cancel solicitation in a negotiated procurement was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the solicitation's stated estimates. Upon which pricing was based. Were significantly overstated. Offerors' pricing was to be based upon the solicitation's estimated number of "runs" to be made to various medical facilities over each of 3 years. Were the only two firms submitting proposals. MONOC was awarded the contract on February 26. As the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. MONOC's price was lower than TLC's. TLC filed a protest in this Office arguing that MONOC was not a small business. That the solicitation's estimated number of runs was significantly overstated. View Decision Matter of: Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc. File: B-276571.2 Date: July 17, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc. (TLC) protests as unreasonable the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAB08-96-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army to obtain emergency medical technician services and transport for Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. We deny the protest. This small business set-aside solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for these services. Offerors' pricing was to be based upon the solicitation's estimated number of "runs" to be made to various medical facilities over each of 3 years; the RFP estimated the annual number of runs at 660. TLC, the incumbent contractor, and Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Services Corporation (MONOC), were the only two firms submitting proposals. The Army evaluated these proposals, conducted two rounds of discussions, and evaluated two sets of best and final offers (BAFO). MONOC was awarded the contract on February 26, 1997, as the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. In addition to its superior past performance rating, MONOC's price was lower than TLC's. TLC filed a protest in this Office arguing that MONOC was not a small business, that the solicitation's estimated number of runs was significantly overstated, and that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal with respect to past performance. Our Office dismissed the first two bases of protest as beyond our jurisdiction and as untimely, respectively. On April 23, TLC withdrew the remainder of its protest after the Small Business Administration determined that MONOC was not a small business. Two weeks later, the Army advised TLC of its intention to cancel the solicitation and to issue a revised competitive solicitation. This protest followed. A procuring agency may reject all proposals (even if technically acceptable) received in response to a solicitation if cancellation is clearly in the government's best interest. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.608(b)(4); Labatt Food Serv., Inc., B-259900, May 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 229 at 3. In a negotiated procurement such as this one, the contracting agency has broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel a solicitation and need only establish a reasonable basis for doing so. See JRW Management Co., Inc., B-260396.2, June 16, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 276 at 6-7. Our review of each of the three bases for the Army's decision to cancel this solicitation shows that any one of them, standing alone, reasonably supports its decision. For the sake of brevity, we will discuss only two of the bases for the cancellation. [1] First, the Army concurs with TLC's prior (but untimely) allegation that the solicitation's estimates are significantly overstated. Projections based upon current usage show that 330 runs annually is the most reasonable estimate, half that set forth in the solicitation. A solicitation for an indefinite quantity of goods or services must contain estimates based on the best information available and must present a reasonably accurate representation of the agency's anticipated actual needs. Lederle-Praxis Biologicals Div., American Cyanamid Corp., B-257104 et al., Aug. 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 205 at 5. TLC does not dispute the reasonableness of the Army's present estimates, but complains that it is unfair to deprive TLC of award under the canceled solicitation when it was TLC itself who pointed out the flaw in the estimates. This contention provides no basis to object to the agency's decision to cancel. There is no justification apparent from the record here for the agency in effect to negotiate a sole source contract with TLC simply because that firm raised a solicitation impropriety. On the contrary, the agency clearly failed to comply with the requirement to set forth reasonably accurate estimates and, since a resolicitation with accurate estimates may result in cost savings to the government, this basis for canceling the solicitation is reasonable.