Computers Universal, Inc.

B-410790.2 Feb 25, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Computers Universal, Inc. (CUI), protests the Department of the Army's cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-14-R-0022, for quality assurance, server administration, application, and network support services for the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command. The protester asserts that the cancellation lacked a rational basis. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:      Computers Universal, Inc. File:                B-410790.2 Date:              February 25, 2015 Peter L. Cannon, for the protester. Capt. Ahsan M. Nasar and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency decision to cancel a solicitation after receipt of proposals was reasonable where the agency sought to increase competition, having determined that some solicitation requirements may have exceeded its needs and been too restrictive. DECISION Computers Universal, Inc. (CUI), protests the Department of the Army’s cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-14-R-0022, for quality assurance, server administration, application, and network support services for the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command.  The protester asserts that the cancellation lacked a rational basis. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on September 19, 2014, was limited to contract holders under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) 8(a) STARS II Government-Wide Acquisition Contract.  RFP at 22.[1]  Award was to be made on a lowest‑price, technically acceptable basis.  RFP at 27.  Proposals were evaluated under three factors:  technical, including subfactors for management, staffing, and experience; past performance; and price.  RFP at 27-28.  CUI’s proposal was the only proposal received in response to the RFP.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The protester was advised on November 3 that its proposal “was determined to be technically unacceptable,” and that “[f]or the above and other reasons,” the RFP would be canceled and the requirement resolicited with a revised performance work statement (PWS).  Letter from the Contracting Officer (CO) to CUI, Nov. 3, 2014.  CUI subsequently received a written debriefing, advising that its proposal had been found to be technically unacceptable due to multiple specific deficiencies under the technical evaluation factor.  Debriefing, Nov. 13, 2014.  This protest followed. DISCUSSION CUI asserts that the cancellation of the RFP was a pretext to avoid making award to it, the only offeror.  According to CUI, the Army had developed a “scheme” to disqualify competitors so that award could be made to another vendor.  Protest at 2.  The protester further asserts that “the only reason the solicitation was cancelled” was because its proposal was unreasonably evaluated.  Id. A procuring agency has broad authority to cancel an RFP and needs only a reasonable basis to do so.  Trade Links Gen. Trading & Contracting, WLL, B‑405182, Sept. 1, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 165 at 2.  The prospect of increased competition (and the lower prices which often result) generally provides a reasonable basis for an agency to cancel a solicitation.  See, e.g., A-Tek, Inc., B‑286967, Mar. 22, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 57 at 2-3.  A reasonable basis to cancel also exists when an agency determines that a solicitation does not accurately reflect its needs.  See, e.g., Gordon & Soraya Diase Coffelt, B-408025, May 30, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 137 at 2-3; MedVet Dev. LLC, B-406530, June 18, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 196 at 2-3.  Further, as long as there is a reasonable basis for doing so, an agency may cancel a solicitation no matter when the information precipitating the cancellation first arises, even if it is not until offers have been submitted and evaluated.  Id.  Where the record reflects that there was a reasonable basis to cancel the solicitation, we will not find that the agency abused its discretion, even though it could have taken a different course by amending the solicitation.  See Skyline ULTD, Inc., B-408961, Dec. 27, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 298 at 2. Where, as here, a protester has alleged that an agency’s rationale for cancellation is pretextual, that is, the agency’s actual motivation is to avoid awarding a contract on a competitive basis or to avoid resolving a protest, we will closely examine the basis for the agency’s actions.  Superlative Techs., Inc., B-310489, B-310489.2, Jan. 4, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 12 at 7.  Notwithstanding such scrutiny, however, the reasonableness standard applicable to cancellation of a solicitation remains unchanged.