ENPAC LLC (SPE4A6-19-R-0566)

B-418238 Feb 04, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ENPAC, LLC, of Eastlake, Ohio, challenges the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A6-19-R-0566 issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for spill containment units (SCUs). The protester contends that the agency's cancellation decision lacked a reasonable basis and was undertaken for the purpose of avoiding an agency-level protest filed by Basic Concepts, Inc. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  ENPAC LLC File:  B-418238 Date:   February 4, 2020 Michelle F. Kantor, Esq., and William J. Beckley, Esq., McDonald Hopkins LLC, for the protester. Ashley Kelly, Esq., Jennifer McNamara, Esq., and Robert E. Sebold, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency’s decision to cancel a solicitation was made solely for the purpose of avoiding a protest is denied where the agency’s explanation for the decision was reasonable and there was no evidence that the explanation was pretextual. DECISION ENPAC, LLC, of Eastlake, Ohio, challenges the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE4A6-19-R-0566 issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for spill containment units (SCUs).  The protester contends that the agency’s cancellation decision lacked a reasonable basis and was undertaken for the purpose of avoiding an agency-level protest filed by Basic Concepts, Inc. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 15, 2019, the agency issued the RFP.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1.  The RFP identified four approved models of SCUs, and both ENPAC and Basic Concepts submitted timely proposals.  Id. at 1-2.  On September 11, Basic Concepts filed an agency-level protest alleging that its model of SCU was the only model that met the product description included in the RFP, and that the other models identified in the RFP did not actually meet the RFP’s stated requirements.  Id. at 2. On October 15, 2019, the acquisition supervisor informed the contracting officer that the item solicited under the RFP was no longer required[1] and inquired whether the solicitation should be cancelled.  Id.  The acquisition supervisor then reassigned the requirement for the item to a different contracting officer so that the item could be procured as part of a larger acquisition of SCUs in various sizes, which is ongoing.  Id.  On October 21, the original contracting officer notified both ENPAC and Basic Concepts that the solicitation was cancelled because there was no longer a need for a long-term contract, but that there may be “tactical” buys in the future.  Agency Report (AR), Tab L, Email from Contracting Officer to ENPAC and Basic Concepts, October 21, 2019.  This protest followed.  DISCUSSION The protester alleges that the cancellation of the RFP in this case was unreasonable because the agency has not identified a rational basis for the cancellation.  Protester’s Comments at 2-3.  In this regard, the protester argues that the agency has not explained why consolidating the requirements is advantageous, and has additionally offered conflicting explanations for the cancellation.  Id.  Specifically, the protester notes that the agency initially suggested that the RFP was being cancelled because the agency was not pursuing a long-term contract for the item, but now the agency argues that the RFP was cancelled so it could be consolidated into a different long-term contract.  Id.  The protester suggests that the agency actually cancelled the procurement to avoid the protest filed by Basic Concepts, and that the agency’s various rationales are merely pretexts.[2]  Id. In a negotiated procurement, such as this one, an agency has broad authority to decide whether to cancel a solicitation, and to do so, need only establish a reasonable basis.  VSE Corp., B-290452.2, Apr. 11, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 111 at 6.  A reasonable basis to cancel exists when, for example, an agency determines that a solicitation does not accurately reflect its needs.  MedVet Dev., LLC, B-406530, June 18, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 196 at 3.  For example, cancellation of a procurement is reasonable when the agency determines that it no longer has a requirement for the item solicited, or when the agency discovers an existing contract for its requirement would be more advantageous to the government than continuing with the procurement.  Lasmer Indus., Inc., B‑400866.2 et al., Mar.