BNUMBER:  B-275539
DATE:  March 3, 1997
TITLE:  Switlik Parachute Company, Inc.

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Switlik Parachute Company, Inc.

File:     B-275539

Date:March 3, 1997

Glenn L. Blackwell, Esq. and Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and 
Ganister, for the protester.
Carolyn E. Riemer, Esq., and Harry D. Boonin, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST

Contracting agency's decision to cancel solicitation and resolicit 
requirement after termination of an improper contract award, rather 
than make award to protester under original solicitation, was 
unobjectionable where requirement significantly increased since 
issuance of original solicitation, and a consolidated procurement for 
the increased quantity offers potential cost savings and reduced 
administrative costs and burdens.

DECISION

Switlik Parachute Company, Inc. protests the cancellation of request 
for proposals (RFP) No. N00383-96-R-P612, issued by the Department of 
the Navy for anti-exposure hood assemblies, which provide insulated 
protection to military air crew members.  Switlik argues that, rather 
than canceling the RFP, the agency should have made award to Switlik 
as the low offeror under the RFP.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on June 29, 1996 for a total of 3,165 hood 
assemblies, with delivery of 2,327 units to Norfolk, Virginia (CLIN 
0001AA) and 838 units to San Diego, California (CLIN 0001AB).  The RFP 
was subject to a qualified products list, with only Mustang 
Engineering Tech Apparel and Switlik qualified to provide the item; it 
also required first article testing.

On October 22, 1996, after receiving offers from Switlik (lowest 
price) and Mustang and twice extending the closing date, the Navy 
issued amendment No. 0003, which reduced the Norfolk quantity by 991, 
from 2,327 to 1,336 units (for a resulting total quantity on both line 
items of 2,174 units) and further gave offerors the opportunity to 
revise their prices.  This reduction was based on the agency's fiscal 
year 1997 budget execution process, where a policy decision was made 
to eliminate the "safety level," a previously specified quantity of 
items in excess of the expected requirements, which served as a 
cushion to protect against stock outages during procurement lead time.  
In response to the amendment, Mustang did not submit a revised price.  
Switlik did raise its price for the Norfolk line item, which increased 
its total price, but its total price remained low.  However, in 
evaluating the prices, the agency mistakenly calculated the firm's 
price on the basis of an increase for both line items; this caused 
Switlik's price to be higher than Mustang's.  Unaware of the 
miscalculation, the agency made award to Mustang as the low, 
responsible offeror.    

After receiving notice of the award, Switlik brought the 
miscalculation to the agency's attention.  In response, the agency 
terminated Mustang's contract for the convenience of the government 
and advised the offerors that there would be a new solicitation based 
on an increase in the required quantity.  The agency reports that at 
the time of termination the requirement had increased by 528 units and 
has since increased by another 211 units, for a total increase of 739 
units (to a total of 2,913 units).[1]

Switlik questions the validity of the agency's assertion that the 
required quantity has increased, suggesting that the agency has 
manipulated certain inventory figures,  and argues that, in any case, 
instead of resoliciting the Navy should make award to Switlik under 
the original RFP based on its low price, and obtain any needed 
additional quantity through a second procurement.   

Switlik's arguments are without merit.  The record indicates that the 
Navy's legimate required quantity has materially increased.  As shown 
on the agency's "item status report," dated January 14, 1997, the 
increased quantity was based on a computer-generated calculation using 
the software program "Automated Item Manager Toolkit," which consisted 
primarily of three variables--(1) reorder level (ROL), including 
safety level; (2) back orders; and (3) procurement lead time planned 
program requirements (PCLT/PPR).  The ROL was derived from historical 
data for the average demand over the lead time.  Specifically, the 
data input for this item consisted of a quarterly demand of 259.22 
units (the record includes historical demand data); this was 
multiplied by a total lead time of 3.8 quarters (2 quarters 
administrative lead time and 1.8 quarters production lead time) to 
arrive at an ROL of 985 units.  A safety level of 0 was provided for 
in the ROL calculation, reflecting the agency's policy as of the 
October 22 amendment.  The back order variable was 1,407, based on an 
electronic listing of requisitions for the item.  The PCLT/PPR 
variable--representing anticipated requirements not encompassed by the 
ROL or back orders, for example, a using activity's notice of a future 
requirement--was 234 units.  These variables--985, 1,407 and 
234--totaled 2,626 units.  This total then was reduced by 231 units 
(28 on hand and 203 due under contract or from other sources), for a 
net requirement of 2,395 units, and then, as a final adjustment, 
increased by 518 units to reflect economic ordering quantity (EOQ)[2] 
considerations, for a final total of 2,913 units.  This represents a 
34-percent increase above the amended quantity in the original 
solicitation; we consider this to be a material change in the 
requirement.  See Budney Indus., B-252361, June 10, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
450 (39-percent increase in quantity constituted a significant 
increase such that resolicitation was warranted).
 
Switlik contends that the increase in the agency's current needs 
essentially reflects the shifting of the supposedly abandoned safety 
level quantity (991 units) to the ROL variable (985 units) in order to 
artificially augment the agency's procurement needs.  This is refuted 
by the record.  An "item status report," dated January 14, 1996, as 
well as other electronic reports, dated December 19, November 20, and 
October 15, 1996, show the progression of the agency's quantity needs 
over the period in question, and indicate that the quantity increase 
was largely due, not to inclusion of a safety level, but to an 
increase in back orders.  Moreover, as discussed, the January 14, 1997 
status report clearly shows an ROL level of 985, and a 0 safety level 
quantity; this is in contrast to the agency's needs as calculated on 
October 15, 1996 (prior to the agency's policy decision to delete the 
safety level quantity), where the status report shows an ROL of 1,930 
units (almost double the January level), but specifically includes a 
safety level of 983 units.  The specific figures and calculations in 
the status reports, which are not disputed by the protester, 
corroborate the agency's explanation of how the ROL was calculated.  
There thus is no basis for questioning the validity of the increase in 
the agency's  needs.

Cancellation of an RFP after prices have been revealed, as here, is 
proper where the record contains plausible evidence or a reasonable 
possibility that a decision not to cancel would be prejudicial to the 
government or the integrity of the procurement system.  Budney Indus., 
supra.  One circumstance under which cancellation is appropriate is 
where the needs of the agency have changed in some material respect 
since issuance of the original solicitation.  Id.

The agency's decision to cancel and resolicit was proper due to the 
change in the requirement.  While the agency could procure the total 
requirement under two separate procurements, it is clear that doing so 
would not be in the government's interest.  Under 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2384a(a)(1) (1994), agencies are to procure supplies in the quantity 
that will result in the most advantageous cost.  Because 
manufacturing/production costs generally decrease as quantities 
increases, procuring the entire quantity under one solicitation 
reasonably could be expected to result in a lower unit price than 
proceeding with two separate procurements.  In fact, Switlik's own 
response to the amendment to the original RFP--it raised its price for 
the line item under which the quantity was reduced--confirms that this 
price/quantity relationship exists for the items being procured here.  
Further, the administrative burden on the agency, as well as 
administrative costs, would be increased by the need to administer two 
separate contracts, potentially with two different contractors.  These 
considerations provide a sufficient basis for the agency to proceed 
with a resolicitation encompassing the entire required quantity.  See 
Budney Indus., supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Where, as here, the agency terminates a contract and resolicits, it 
is in effect canceling the RFP, and we will determine the propriety of 
the agency action by applying the rules pertaining to the cancellation 
of a solicitation.  Information Ventures, Inc., B-241441.4; 
B-241441.6, Dec. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  583. 

2. The EOQ is generated by a formula to determine the most economical 
quantity based on the Navy's administrative costs related to buying 
and storing the item.