Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC (W9127N24R0029)

B-423332 Apr 29, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, a small business of Apex, North Carolina, protests the cancellation of solicitation No. W9127N24R0029, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects required by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. The protester contends that the agency's cancellation of the solicitation is unreasonable and improper. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC File: B-423332 Date: April 29, 2025 Nicholas Nazarko, Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, for the protester. Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., and Elisabeth A. Dixon, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s cancellation of a solicitation for architectural engineering construction management services for multiple projects is denied where the agency determined that the most immediate project had been eliminated from the requirement, the next scheduled project would not commence until at least a year later, and funding was not available to make an award. DECISION Davenergy-VCI JV, LLC, a small business of Apex, North Carolina, protests the cancellation of solicitation No. W9127N24R0029, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for architectural engineering construction management services for medical facility construction projects required by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) in Oregon and Washington. The protester contends that the agency’s cancellation of the solicitation is unreasonable and improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2024, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6 procedures, the Army Corps of Engineers issued the synopsis seeking an architect-engineer firm to provide construction management services “to build medical facilities that serve our Veterans throughout the state[s] of Oregon and Washington.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Synopsis at 1. The synopsis contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a period of performance of five years, beginning on the date of contract award, and a “total capacity” of $25 million. Id. at 2. The synopsis further stated that the IDIQ contract would have a minimum guaranteed amount of $10,000, a minimum task order amount of $3,000, and that “[m]ultiple task orders are anticipated to be awarded between $1M and $5M in support of this project.” Id. The synopsis identified six upcoming VA projects as follows: Location Construction Contract Type ECC (DFARS 236.204)[[1]] Portland [District VA (DVA)] Phase 2 Design-Build Over $500,000,000 White City Package 1 Design-Build $250,000,000 - $500,000,000 White City Package 2 Design-Bid-Build $25,000,000 - $100,000,000 Roseburg VA To be determined (TBD) $250,000,000 - $500,000,000 America Lake VA TBD TBD Seattle VA TBD TBD Id. at 3. On September 27, 2024, the agency advised the protester that it was found to be the most highly qualified firm, and the agency would send a formal solicitation in the coming weeks. Protest at 5. However, on February 13, 2025, the agency informed the protester: “Unfortunately, the U.S Army Corp of Engineers, Portland District, needs to cancel the subject requirement and solicitation in its entirety in accordance with FAR 15.206(e). Should a similar requirement be identified in the future a new solicitation will be issued.” Id. at 6. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester argues that the decision to cancel the solicitation is unreasonable and unjustified by the agency. Protest at 2. The agency responds that cancellation of the solicitation was reasonable because some of the anticipated projects have been canceled and it does not otherwise have the funding to support the requirement. For the reasons discussed below, we find the agency reasonably canceled the solicitation and deny the protest. As an initial matter, the protester contends, and the agency concedes, that FAR section 15.206(e) is inapplicable and improperly cited in the cancellation letter.[2] Protest at 6; Req. for Dismissal at 1. However, the agency argues that even if FAR section 15.206(e) was incorrectly cited, this error does not constitute a procurement violation where a reasonable basis for cancellation of the solicitation otherwise exists. We agree. As discussed below, the record shows that the agency canceled the solicitation because the requirements changed, and it no longer had funding to proceed with an award. Accordingly, we dismiss this allegation.[3] See U.S.