B-297904.2, Starlight Corporation, Inc., April 14, 2006

B-297904.2 Apr 14, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Starlight Corporation, Inc. protests that the Department of the Air Force improperly canceled request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4479-05-R-0001, for aircraft services at McChord Air Force Base, Washington. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297904.2, Starlight Corporation, Inc., April 14, 2006 Decision Matter of: Starlight Corporation, Inc. File: B-297904.2 Date: April 14, 2006 Susan K. Chelsea, Esq., and R. Patrick McCullough, Esq., McCullough & Associates, APC, for the protester. Brian A. Darst, Esq., for Empire Aircraft Services, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Derek S. Sherrill, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency had reasonable basis for canceling request for proposals for aircraft services where solicitation was ambiguous with regard to the experience required resulting in possible prejudice to the competition and where one of the reasonable interpretations of the experience requirement overstated the agency's actual needs. DECISION Starlight Corporation, Inc. protests that the Department of the Air Force improperly canceled request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4479-05-R-0001, for aircraft services at McChord Air Force Base, Washington. We deny the protest. The aircraft services requested under the RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, include transient alert; aircraft wash, lubrication and corrosion control; –follow me—/special purpose vehicles; de-icing, glycol recovery services, and wash water clean up; and emergency or warfare contingency operation services. Starlight was awarded the contract, and Empire Aircraft Services subsequently protested the award to our Office, alleging that the agency deviated from the stated evaluation criteria, which assertedly required certain experience. The agency notified our Office that it would be taking corrective action by reevaluating the offers, and our Office dismissed the protest. After reevaluating the proposals, the agency again determined to make the award to Starlight. Empire filed another protest with our Office on essentially the same basis. In response, the Air Force decided to terminate the contract with Starlight, cancel the RFP and resolicit the services. In response to the agency's corrective action our Office dismissed Empire's protest as academic. On January 10, 2006, the Air Force terminated Starlight's contract. On January 20, Starlight protested the Air Force's termination of its contract, and the cancellation of the RFP, which protest we dismissed as untimely on January 27.[1] Meanwhile, the protester requested a telephonic debriefing. In response, on January 19, the agency, for the first time, explained the reasons for the termination of Starlight's contract. Starlight again protested--this time timely--the cancellation of the solicitation, and termination of its contract, on January 30.[2] The Air Force stated that it cancelled the RFP and terminated Starlight's contract because it had determined that the solicitation's language was ambiguous regarding whether experience was required for certain aircraft services as a prerequisite to award. Specifically, the Air Force claims that a reading of both the instructions to offerors and the evaluation criteria could lead potential offerors to believe that certain experience was required in a number of areas to receive award, when, in fact, the agency did not intend that any such experience would be required. Agencies have broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel negotiated procurements and need advance only a reasonable (as opposed to a compelling) basis for their decision. Superlative Techs., Inc., B-293709.2, June 18, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 116 at 3. A reasonable basis for cancellation exists when, for example, a solicitation is ambiguous in a way that affects the competition or overstates the agency's minimum needs, such that the cancellation of the solicitation and the issuance of a revised solicitation would present the potential for increased competition. Global Solutions Network Inc., B-289342.4, March 26, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 64 at 3. The RFP set forth a –best-value— evaluation scheme involving three factors: price, technical proposal and past performance. The technical proposal was to be evaluated on a –pass/fail— basis, and a tradeoff would be made between past performance and price, where past performance was considered –significantly more important than price,— in order to determine the best value to the government.[3] RFP sect. 52.212-2 addend. para. 1. The RFP's instructions to offerors for the preparation of the technical proposal consisted of two parts. The offerors were first to address certain mission capability requirements, such as staffing approach and organizational approach.