Goode Construction, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-288655.4; B-288655.5; B-288655.6, January 28, 2002

Goode Construction, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-288655.4; B-288655.5; B-288655.6, January 28, 2002 TITLE: Goode Construction, Inc.--Protest and Costs, B-288655.4; B-288655.5; B-288655.6, January 28, 2002 BNUMBER: B-288655.4; B-288655.5; B-288655.6 DATE: January 28, 2002 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Goode Construction, Inc.--Protest and Costs File: B-288655.4; B-288655.5; B-288655.6 Date: January 28, 2002 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins, for the protester. Keith A. Moore-Erickson, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Procuring agency had a reasonable basis to cancel request for proposals where construction schedule required substantial revision that should lower performance cost, and thus result in lower prices on recompetition. 2. Protester is not entitled to recover protest costs where agency took corrective action in response to protest before agency report due date. DECISION Goode Construction, Inc. protests the decision of the United States Coast Guard to cancel request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG47-01-R-3EFK15, for the replacement of the central steam plant with natural gas facilities at the Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May, New Jersey. Goode also requests reimbursement of the costs it incurred in filing and pursuing a protest against an earlier award of a contract to Wren, Inc. under the same solicitation. We deny the protest and the request for costs. The RFP, issued as a HUBZone set-aside, required the successful contractor to decentralize the steam plant before September 15, 2001, the start of the 2002 heating season. Contracting Officer's Statement, B-288655.4 (COS), at 1. The Coast Guard initially made award to Wren. Goode protested to our Office that the award was improper because the Coast Guard improperly evaluated its proposal. We denied those protests. Goode Constr., Inc., B-288655 et al., Oct. 19, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 186. Goode also filed a protest with the Small Business Administration (SBA) challenging Wren's HUBZone contractor status. The SBA upheld the protest by decision of September 21, which Wren appealed. On October 11, the SBA denied Wren's appeal, affirming its decision that Wren was not a HUBZone contractor. On October 25, Goode protested to our Office that the Coast Guard should be required to rescind the award to Wren and award a contract to Goode. On November 6, the Coast Guard notified Wren that it was terminating its contract (Goode was notified of this action on November 8). The agency also decided to cancel the solicitation and resolicit its requirement in the spring. Goode now protests the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation, claiming that the agency instead should make award to Goode as the only HUBZone offeror under the original competition. This argument is without merit. A procuring agency properly may reject all proposals received and cancel an RFP if it has a reasonable basis for doing so. HBD Indus., Inc., B-242010.2, Apr. 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 400 at 3. Where cancellation of a solicitation is justified, the fact that a particular offeror otherwise would have been in line for award does not provide a basis for precluding the agency from canceling. See Tender Loving Care Ambulance & Ambulette Co., Inc., B-276571.2, July 17, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 25 (only small business remaining in competition is not entitled to award under small business set-aside where procuring agency had a reasonable basis to cancel request for proposals); HBD Indus., Inc., supra (sole remaining acceptable offeror is not entitled to award where agency has a legitimate basis to cancel procurement). The Coast Guard states that the primary reason it canceled the solicitation and will resolicit the requirement is that the construction schedule under the RFP must be substantially revised. COS at 1. Specifically, the agency explains, when the solicitation was issued, construction was required to be completed within 13 months so that the switchover to the central heating system would be completed by September 15, the start of the 2002 heating season. However, as a result of Goode's protests to our Office and the SBA, performance was delayed, and the work now cannot begin until after the 2002 heating season. The agency now expects to issue the solicitation in the spring, with the work to be performed during the summers of 2002 and 2003, and completed by December 2003. The agency believes this increased performance period will reduce the risk associated with the liquidated damages clause, and therefore will reduce offerors' costs and result in lower prices. Id.