A-Tek, Inc., B-286967, March 22, 2001

B-286967 Published: Mar 22, 2001. Publicly Released: Mar 22, 2001. Jump To HIGHLIGHTS FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION Highlights A firm protested the Customs Service's cancellation of solicitation for power supply services, contending that although the solicitation was ambiguous, its technically acceptable bid should have been selected for award. GAO held that the Customs Service reasonably determined that the solicitation was ambiguous and overstated its needs. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: A-Tek, Inc. File: B-286967 Date: March 22, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION A-Tek, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-I-00-013, issued by the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, for replacement of the uninterruptible power supply (UPS) service to the Newington Data Center, Newington, Virginia. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFP for the installation and support of the UPS service for 5 years from the date of contract award. RFP attach. A, statement of work (SOW), at 1. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government, considering certain designated evaluation criteria. The agency received and evaluated proposals and revised proposals, /1/ and determined that the proposal submitted by Commercial Air, Power & Cable, Inc. represented the best value to the government. After receiving a debriefing on October 5, A-Tek filed a protest with the agency, contending that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and selection of Commercial Air's proposal for award were unreasonable. A-Tek specifically argued in its agency-level protest that all of the proposals received, other than A-Tek's, should have been rejected as technically unacceptable because they did not offer to complete the installation of the system within 45 days of contract award as A-Tek claimed was required by the solicitation. Agency Report (AR), Tab V, Agency-Level Protest (Oct. 10, 2000). The agency found, after reviewing A-Tek's protest, that the proposals had not been properly evaluated, and that the RFP was ambiguous as to whether the installation of the system had to be completed within 45 days of contract award. Agency Legal Memorandum at 2. The agency also concluded that the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation required revision, and that a more detailed SOW was needed. Id.; Contracting Specialist's Statement at 4. Accordingly, the agency informed A-Tek by letter dated November 17 that "[a]fter a rather extensive agency review, [the agency has] decided that the acquisition should be resolicited to clarify certain specification requirements, including the time limits for performance." AR, Tab V, Agency Letter to A-Tek (Nov. 17, 2000). A-Tek then filed another protest with the agency, challenging the agency's cancellation of the solicitation and the evaluation of the proposals. In this protest, A-Tek also asserted for the first time that during the conduct of the procurement, the contracting specialist had improperly disclosed A-Tek's "strategy" to Commercial Air. AR, Tab V, Agency-Level Protest (Nov. 20, 2000). The agency subsequently informed A-Tek that the agency had determined "that portions of the solicitation and specification were ambiguous and deficient" and as a result the "specification will be rewritten to provide more clarity relative to the specific requirements of the [agency]." AR, Tab V, Agency Letter to A-Tek (Dec. 4, 2000). A-Tek filed this protest with our Office on December 14, arguing that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of Commercial Air's proposal for award were unreasonable, and that the agency's subsequent cancellation of the solicitation was improper. The protester also contended that the agency improperly disclosed its "unique performance strategy [to] other offerors." 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 interests. Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.608(b)(4); Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc., B-271571.2, June 17, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 25 at 2. In a negotiated procurement such as this one, the contacting agency has broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel a solicitation and need only establish a reasonable basis for doing so. Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc., supra. A reasonable basis exists when, for example, a solicitation is ambiguous, or where it overstates the agency's minimum needs, such that the cancellation of the solicitation and issuance of a revised solicitation would present the potential for increased competition or costs savings. Chant Eng'g Co., Inc., B-270149.2, Feb. 14, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para.