B-310742.2; B-310903, Para Scientific Company, February 14, 2008

B-310742.2; B-310903, Para Scientific Company, February 14, 2008 TITLE: B-310742.2; B-310903, Para Scientific Company, February 14, 2008 BNUMBER: B-310742.2; B-310903 DATE: February 14, 2008 **************************************************************** B-310742.2; B-310903, Para Scientific Company, February 14, 2008 Decision Matter of: Para Scientific Company File: B-310742.2; B-310903 Date: February 14, 2008 Hiram Reinhart for the protester. Theresa Chesnut, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) was proper where agency reasonably determined that the RFQ materially overstated its requirements and that revising the RFQ would lead to enhanced competition. DECISION Para Scientific Company protests the corrective action proposed by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, San Diego, in response to Para Scientific's earlier protest of the issuance of an order to another firm under request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00259-07-T-0361, for microscope slides and slide cabinets. Para Scientific also protests the agency's cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N00258-08-T-0005, for histology cassettes, coverglasses, and chemical-resistant markers. We deny the protests. Para Scientific originally protested the issuance of an order to another firm under solicitation No. N00259-07-T-0361 on October 31, 2007, alleging that its offered price was low enough to warrant a split order and that its "alternate bid price" was lower than the total price offered by the selected firm.[1] In response to the protest, the contracting officer reviewed the solicitation and determined that it was in the agency's best interest to terminate the order and make no other order under the solicitation. The agency stated that the contracting officer would develop a new procurement strategy and, on the basis of that proposed corrective action, our Office dismissed Para Scientific's protest as academic on November 8. On November 9, Para Scientific filed a second protest challenging the proposed corrective action, alleging that the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation was improper and could only be justified as an attempt to direct an order to a favored firm or to circumvent the bid protest process. Protest, Nov. 9, 2007, at 1-2. On December 3, while our Office was engaged in developing the second protest, Para Scientific filed a third protest, challenging the cancellation of an unrelated solicitation for medical equipment, solicitation No. N00258-08-T-0005, alleging that the cancellation was retaliatory, and that "award manipulation is a possibility in this and other solicitations (see original protest as one other example)." Protest, Dec. 3, 2007, at 1. Due to the two protests' shared allegations and common facts, we will address both protests in this decision. Each solicitation had the same contracting officer and the same contract negotiator, and each solicitation was intended to procure specified brand-name items. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR) at 3. Therefore, each solicitation was issued as a "brand-name only" requirement, rather than a "brand name or equal" requirement. Id. Para Scientific nevertheless offered "or equal" products in response to each of the solicitations.[2] After receiving Para Scientific's offer under solicitation No. N00259-07-T-0361, the agency attempted to evaluate whether the offered "or equal" product met the agency's requirements, but was ultimately unable to make that determination. AR at 5. The contracting officer therefore issued an order to another firm that had offered the brand-name products at the lowest price. After Para Scientific challenged issuance of the order under that solicitation, the contracting officer reviewed the entire contract file and determined that there were significant problems with the solicitation that warranted cancellation. AR at 7. The contracting officer determined that the agency had (1) neglected to develop a sole source justification memorandum, (2) included technical evaluation criteria in the solicitation but had intended an award based solely on price, (3) included language in the solicitation that could suggest that "or equal" products would be considered even though the solicitation was issued as brand-name only, and (4) failed to permit a split-award where two disparate items were being solicited. Id.