Safety Storage, Inc., B-280851.2, May 13, 1999

B-280851.2 May 13, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency announced that the solicitation was canceled and that a new solicitation would be issued by DISC. We sustained SSI's protest based on our conclusion that the contracting officer's (CO) determination not to set aside the procurement was based on incomplete information. We recommended that the CO conduct a proper market survey to adequately investigate the potential small business capability and interest in the procurement and determine whether there was a reasonable expectation that offers would be obtained from two responsible small business concerns and that award could be made at a fair market price. The agency informed our Office that the CO was conducting a market survey and coordinating his efforts with both DISC-PA's small business office. View Decision Matter of: Safety Storage, Inc. File: B-280851.2 Date: May 13, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Safety Storage, Inc. (SSI) protests the decision of the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) to cancel request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO-500-98-R-0999 for mobile reuse centers (MRC) for ship and land-based operations for the control and storage of hazardous materials. We deny the protest. The Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio (DSC-OH), initially synopsized the solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on September 3, 1997, as an unrestricted procurement. Subsequently, in a November 5 CBD notice, the agency announced that the solicitation was canceled and that a new solicitation would be issued by DISC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (DISC-PA). DISC-PA synopsized the procurement in the CBD on January 23, 1998, and issued the RFP on April 17, on an unrestricted basis. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery requirements contract for a 1-year base period with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP at 105. On August 21, SSI filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency's decision not to set aside the procurement for small businesses. We sustained SSI's protest based on our conclusion that the contracting officer's (CO) determination not to set aside the procurement was based on incomplete information, unsupported assertions regarding the complexity of the required MRCs, and insufficient efforts to ascertain small business capability to perform the contract. Safety Storage, Inc., B-280851, Oct. 29, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 102. We recommended that the CO conduct a proper market survey to adequately investigate the potential small business capability and interest in the procurement and determine whether there was a reasonable expectation that offers would be obtained from two responsible small business concerns and that award could be made at a fair market price. Id. at 5. In response to our decision, the agency informed our Office that the CO was conducting a market survey and coordinating his efforts with both DISC-PA's small business office, and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Agency Report, Tab 6, Letter from DISC-PA to GAO 1 (Nov. 20, 1998). The agency subsequently advised our Office that its customer no longer required the MRCs. Agency Report Tab 10, Letter from DISC-PA to GAO 1 (Feb. 19, 1999). Accordingly, DISC-PA canceled the solicitation. Agency Report Tab 9, RFP No. SPO-500-98-R-0999, amend. No. P00006, Feb. 18, 1999. This protest followed. SSI argues that the agency's decision to cancel the RFP lacks a reasonable basis and demonstrates bad faith. Specifically, SSI maintains that the agency needs the MRCs since, prior to the cancellation, the agency devoted considerable time and effort to revising the RFP's specifications to meet its requirement. SSI further alleges that the delay of more than 3 months before the agency decided to cancel the RFP following our decision sustaining its protest demonstrates bad faith on the part of DISC-PA. In this regard, SSI argues that the delay in canceling the RFP shows that the agency was motivated by its desire to not issue the RFP as a small business set-aside and to not award a contract to SSI. In a negotiated procurement such as this one, the contracting activity has broad authority to decide whether to cancel a solicitation and need only establish a reasonable basis for the cancellation. Brackett Aircraft Radio Co., B-246282, Jan. 8, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 43 at 2. Cancellation is appropriate when an agency determines that it no longer has a requirement for the items solicited. The Potomack Partnership, B-252860, Aug. 3, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 75 at 3. It is the responsibility of the contracting activity to determine its requirements, and our Office will defer to the activity's judgment in that regard. Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-236575, Dec. 12, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 543.