Logistics Solutions Group, Inc., B-294604.7, B-294604.8, July 28, 2005

Logistics Solutions Group, Inc., B-294604.7, B-294604.8, July 28, 2005 TITLE: Logistics Solutions Group, Inc., B-294604.7, B-294604.8, July 28, 2005 BNUMBER: B-294604.7, B-294604.8 DATE: July 28, 2005 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a;GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions;we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Logistics Solutions Group, Inc. File: B-294604.7, B-294604.8 Date: July 28, 2005 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. Capt. Peter G. Hartman, and Capt. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency's decision to cancel solicitation and resolicit requirement was reasonable where the original solicitation no longer represented the agency's actual needs. DECISION Logistics Solutions Group, Inc. protests the decision by the Department of the Army to cancel request for proposals (RFP) No. W912D1-04-R-0019, which sought proposals to provide Standard Army Management Information Systems (STAMIS) training, and Combat Service Support Automation Management Office (CSSAMO) support services.[1] We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part. The requiring activity, the Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC), is responsible for providing logistical support for Army forces deployed in Operation Iraqi, Enduring Freedom, and the Horn of Africa. To fulfill these missions, the requiring activity requires training and support services to accommodate temporary changes in the force structure. The then-existing contract for these services expired on February 29, 2004, but was extended for a total of 6 months to permit the solicitation and award of a follow-on contract. The follow-on RFP was issued on March 21, and as amended, it contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with 3 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, with proposals evaluated on the basis of several technical factors, past performance, and price. RFP at 35-36. Several proposals were received and evaluated by the agency. The agency determined that the proposal submitted by The Logistics Company (TLC) was the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal and made award to that firm on August 19. By letters dated August 22, the agency notified the unsuccessful offerors of the award. On August 27, an unsuccessful offeror, Integration Technologies Group, Inc., filed an initial protest in our Office (B-294604) objecting to the award to TLC. On October 7, Logistics also protested the same award, which we dismissed as untimely (B-294604.4). Thereafter, by letter dated October 21, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to Integration Technologies' protest, as supplemented. Specifically, the agency decided to reevaluate all initial proposals, establish a competitive range, conduct discussions, request and evaluate final revised proposals, and make a new selection decision. Accordingly, on October 22, we dismissed Integration Technologies' protests as academic (B-294604; B-294604.2; B-294604.3; B-294604.5). Between the time Integration Technologies' initial protest was filed and the agency's decision to take corrective action, the contracting officer issued a sole-source bridge contract to TLC on August 31, 2004--the only contractor who had provided these services in theater--because of the requiring activity's on-going need for these support services. Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact at 1. On March 15, 2005, the requiring activity, notified the contracting officer that its needs had changed. Specifically, the contracting officer was advised: I would like to request that [the contracting officer] change the scope of the solicitation for the CSSAMO contract. I don't believe the existing statement of work is valid as we move forward. It has been over a year since the last solicitation was executed, and in that time the requirements of the civilian CSSAMO have broadened based on what we need in theater. As we reduce the military footprint in theater, the civilian CCSAMO will have to assume more of the responsibilities for customer unit support. Additionally, the technical criteria with which the responses to the previous solicitation were evaluated have changed and require that the contractor have an enhanced skill set.