BNUMBER:  B-275152
DATE:  January 27, 1997
TITLE:  Robertson Leasing Corporation

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Robertson Leasing Corporation

File:     B-275152

Date:January 27, 1997

Donald O. Ferguson, Esq., and Carl Payne Tobey, Jr., Esq., Gardner & 
Ferguson, Inc., for the protester.
Robert L. Kenny, Esq., Duckor Spradling & Metzger, for Abre 
Enterprises, an intervenor.
Joni M. Gibson, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Cancellation of solicitation is unobjectionable where the contracting 
officer reasonably determined that the requirement should be 
recompeted under relaxed specifications in order to increase 
competition and reduce costs to government, and the record does not 
support allegation of bad faith.

DECISION

Robertson Leasing Corporation protests the cancellation of request for 
proposals (RFP) No. MS-95-R-0034, issued by the United States Marshals 
Service (USMS), Department of Justice, for towing, storage, and 
disposal services for seized and forfeited vehicles in San Diego 
County, California.  Robertson challenges the cancellation as 
unreasonable and argues that the agency acted in bad faith in order to 
avoid awarding to Robertson or its only competitor, Abre Enterprises.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued August 1, 1995, and contemplated the award of two 
indefinite delivery contracts for a base year with four 1-year 
options.[1]  The RFP required the successful offeror to tow vehicles 
from the locations where they had been seized by the government[2] to 
a facility operated by the contractor for storage until disposed of by 
auction or salvage.  Vehicles were to be stored in an indoor or 
outdoor facility, depending upon value.[3]  The RFP required offerors 
to submit with a technical proposal either:  (1) proof of ownership of 
a facility, (2) a copy of a current lease to such a facility, (3) a 
copy of an "intent to lease" agreement, or (4) a copy of a contract to 
purchase a facility that would eventually meet the agency's 
requirements.   

Six proposals were received by the extended September 18 closing 
date.[4]  The technical evaluation board reviewed the proposals, 
discussions were held on January 22, 1996,[5] and best and final 
offers (BAFO) were submitted by March 6.  Four BAFOs were determined 
to be technically acceptable or capable of becoming technically 
acceptable.   

USMS had been concerned about limited competition under this 
solicitation because, historically, only two vendors, Robertson and 
Abre, have had facilities with sufficient capacity to handle the 
volume of vehicles in USMS custody.[6]  USMS hoped to increase the 
usual level of competition by dividing the area to be serviced into 
two zones and allowing contractors to propose for only one zone.  Then 
in March 1996, USMS began a review of this program and determined that 
if it could acquire its own land on which to operate the seizure and 
forfeiture services on a government-owned/contractor operated (GO/CO) 
basis, it could increase competition and have more options if one 
contractor should prove unsatisfactory.  The agency started looking 
for possible sites to acquire or lease and, by letter dated April 17, 
requested that offerors extend their offers through September 30.  All 
four offerors extended their offers.  No decision was made on a course 
of action by September 27 and offerors were requested to extend their 
offers to December 31.  Three offerors extended their offers through 
December, while Robertson extended its offer through October 31.

In September, USMS learned that because of enforcement policy changes 
at INS, the number of vehicles being seized in the north zone had 
significantly decreased.  In response, USMS issued an amendment on 
October 9 to revise the statement of work (SOW), incorporate updated 
wage determinations, revise the evaluation criteria, and request a 
second round of BAFOs.  The revised SOW made the north zone contract 
for towing only and transferred all storage and disposal services to 
the south zone.

On the same date, USMS learned that at least one appropriate site 
would be available within 6 months and that handling the procurement 
on a GO/CO basis was a viable option.  Therefore, by amendment issued 
October 28, USMS notified offerors that its requirements for towing, 
storage, and disposal services had substantially changed and the 
solicitation was canceled.  The amendment stated that the agency 
anticipated issuing a new solicitation for towing, storage, and 
disposal services to be provided on government-owned/leased property.  
This protest followed.

Robertson protests that the cancellation of the RFP was improper.  
Specifically, the protester argues that the agency's determination to 
perform the work on a GO/CO basis is a pretext to avoid awarding 
Robertson or Abre a contract.  The protester alleges that when the 
agency issued the solicitation, it had already decided that it "did 
not want to do business" with Robertson or Abre.  The protester also 
contends that the agency's multiple requests for extensions, during 
the time the agency intended to cancel the solicitation, exposed 
Robertson to extensive continuing facilities lease expenses.  
Robertson argues that the "secretive, conspiratorial manner" in which 
the agency's determination was made demonstrates bad faith, deception, 
and a breach of the implied contract to fairly consider its proposal.

In a negotiated procurement, as here, the contracting officer has 
broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel a solicitation and to 
do so the contracting officer need only have a reasonable basis.  See 
Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.608(b) (FAC 90-31); FRC Int'l, 
Inc., B-260078, Apr. 10, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  189.  A reasonable basis to 
cancel exists when a new solicitation presents the potential for 
increased competition or cost savings.  G.K.S. Inc., 68 Comp. Gen. 589 
(1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  117; Bell Indus., Inc., B-233029, Jan. 25, 1989, 
89-1 CPD  para.  81.  Therefore,
cancellation of a solicitation is proper where the solicitation 
materially overstates the agency's requirements and the agency desires 
to obtain enhanced competition by relaxing the requirements.  Xactex 
Corp., B-247139, May 5, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  423; HBD Indus., Inc., 
B-242010.2, Apr. 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  400.

Here, we find that the agency's decision to cancel the RFP and 
resolicit based upon relaxed specifications was reasonable.  First, 
the agency was concerned about the level of competition for this 
procurement.  When the agency learned that it could buy or lease an 
appropriate site for storing vehicles, it could reasonably assume that 
the field of potential competitors would significantly increase since 
a major requirement of the solicitation could be eliminated.  See 
Xactex Corp., supra; Research Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., 
B-236575, Dec. 12, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  543.

Second, USMS reports that it currently pays Abre $250,000 for the 
indoor storage for 1 year.  The agency estimates that one warehouse 
identified as meeting its needs will cost $125,000 to retrofit and 
approximately $200 yearly for utilities.  Thus, the agency believes 
that it will save considerable money by utilizing the GO/CO approach.

Accordingly, since greater competition and lower costs to the 
government are potentially available through the GO/CO approach, the 
agency clearly had a reasonable basis for canceling the RFP.

While Robertson surmises that the timing of the cancellation, coming 
after what Robertson perceives as unusual delays and repeated requests 
for the extension of offers, suggests bad faith on the part of 
contracting officials, there is no evidence to support this claim.  To 
show bad faith, a protester must show that the contracting agency 
directed its actions with the specific and malicious intent to injure 
the protester.  Telestar Int'l Corp., B-247557.2, June 18, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  530.  Contrary to Robertson's assertion that the agency knew in 
August 1995 when it issued the solicitation that it would not award a 
contract, the record shows, as noted above, that USMS only began 
discussing alternatives in March 1996 and made its determination to 
conduct the procurement on a GO/CO basis in October.  The fact that 
USMS requested that offerors extend their offers before subsequently 
canceling the solicitation is not evidence of bad faith.  The record 
shows that the first request for extension occurred before initial 
offers were submitted; the second and third requests occurred because 
the agency was investigating alternatives to increase competition and 
determined that the procurement should be held until additional 
information became available.  The decision to cancel was made as soon 
as USMS determined that an alternative approach was feasible within an 
acceptable time frame.  In any event, an agency may properly cancel a 
solicitation no matter when the information precipitating the 
cancellation first surfaces or should have been known, even if the 
solicitation is not canceled until after proposals have been submitted 
and evaluated and protesters have incurred costs in pursuing the 
award.  Peterson-Nunez Joint Venture, B-258788, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 
CPD  para.  73; PAI Corp.   et al., B-244287.5 et al., Nov. 29, 1991, 91-2 
CPD  para.  508.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The RFP divided the San Diego service area into a north and a south 
zone, contemplating an award to an offeror that could perform the 
contract in each zone.  The RFP was unrestricted for the south zone 
but set aside for small business competition in the north zone.

2. The vehicles are generally seized by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Border Patrol, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

3. Vehicles with a National Automobile Dealers Association value of 
$5,001 or more were to be stored indoors.

4. Four proposals were for the north zone; three were for the south 
zone.  One offeror proposed for both zones.  Robertson's proposal was 
for the south zone.  The original September 11 closing date was 
extended 1 week to September 18.

5. Work on this procurement was temporarily halted in December 1995 
and January 1996 due to the government shut-down and adverse weather 
conditions.

6. Approximately 40 acres of land and 60,000 square feet of warehouse 
are needed to store the vehicles.