BNUMBER:  B-277305 
DATE:  September 22, 1997
TITLE: Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc., B-277305, September 22, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc.

File:     B-277305

Date:September 22, 1997

Frederic G. Antoun, Jr., Esq., for the protester.
Thomas Kelly, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Allegation that termination of contract and resolicitation is improper 
because agency should have modified protester's contract and 
considered protester's claim for a substantial concomitant price 
increase does not provide a valid basis for protest.   

DECISION

Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc. protests the termination for convenience 
of a contract issued to it by the Government Printing Office (GPO) 
under Jacket 425-791, and the resolicitation of a requirement for the 
production of four versions of a variably imaged self-mailer for the 
Social Security Administration.  Freedom requests that the agency 
withdraw the termination for convenience, cancel the subsequent 
resolicitation and award, and reinstate Freedom's original contract 
with a change order for certain additional required work.

We dismiss the protest.

The agency received four bids at the original bid opening on May 19, 
1997.  Award was made to Freedom on the basis of its low bid of 
$852,862.50.  At a post-award conference, Freedom's representative was 
advised by the agency that the specifications were incorrect because 
the product needed by the user required the computerized imaging of 
both sides of the form, rather than the one side specified in the IFB.  
Freedom subsequently stated that it intended to charge for this 
modification to the specifications and, on June 2, Freedom quoted an 
additional price of approximately $151,052.80, with no supporting 
justification.  To date, Freedom has submitted only an internal price 
list, which the agency concluded was not sufficient to justify 
Freedom's additional charge.  

Because Freedom did not adequately justify its proposed $151,052.80 
charge to meet the revised specifications, the contracting officer 
decided not to modify the contract.  Instead, the contracting officer 
decided to terminate for convenience and resolicit bids using the new 
specifications.  The agency's Contract Review Board unanimously 
concurred with the contracting officer's decision.  The day after the 
termination for convenience, the customer agency, the Social Security 
Administration, notified the GPO of 10 other changes to the 
specifications in addition to the change involving two-sided imaging.  
GPO subsequently issued a new solicitation with specifications 
reflecting the two-sided imaging requirement as well as the other 
changes.   

On June 9, Freedom filed an agency-level protest against the 
termination for convenience and the resolicitation, which was denied 
on June 17.  On that same date, the four bids that were received in 
response to the resolicitation were opened.  Webcraft Technology, Inc. 
was awarded the contract on the basis of its low bid of $966,737.57.  
Freedom's bid of $974,557.50 was second low.  This protest to GAO 
followed. 

An agency's decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of 
the government is usually a matter of contract administration that is 
not subject to review by our Office under our bid protest procedures, 
unless the decision results from the agency's finding that the initial 
contract award was improper, in which case we will review the protest 
to examine the propriety of the award procedures that underlie the 
termination action.  Special Waste, Inc., 67 Comp. Gen. 429, 431 
(1988), 88-1 CPD  para.  520 at 3.  Termination of a contract and 
resolicitation is proper when, subsequent to award, the contracting 
agency discovers that the solicitation did not properly describe the 
government's needs, id., or that the solicitation contains inadequate 
specifications which misled competitors and deprived the government of 
the full benefits of competition.  See Flow Tech., Inc., 67 Comp. Gen. 
161, 162 (1987), 87-2 CPD  para.  633 at 3. 

Here, the crux of the protester's argument is that our Office should 
review a contract administration matter and require the agency to 
issue a contract change order for which Freedom seeks a substantial 
price adjustment, rather than terminate Freedom's contract.  While the 
protester argues that our Office should consider the matter because it 
involves a termination based on a material solicitation defect, the 
protester's arguments are contradicted by its actions.  That is, the 
protester asserts that GPO's cancellation reflects an improper 
determination that the specifications were materially defective when, 
in fact, the specification defects were minimal and inconsequential.  
However, the protester's position that the changed requirements 
warranted a price adjustment in excess of $150,000 under a contract 
award of $852,862.50, as well as its price increase of more than 
$120,000 under the successor IFB establish that the protester did not 
view the specification defects as negligible.  See Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  14.405.

Where an agency makes award to a firm based on a solicitation which 
does not accurately reflect the agency's minimum needs, the award 
should be terminated and the procurement reopened to allow competing 
firms an opportunity to respond to the agency's revised requirements.  
Budney Indus., B-252361, June 10, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  450 at 3-4.  This 
is the appropriate action even where prices have been revealed, since 
award under a solicitation that does not accurately reflect an 
agency's needs is prejudicial to the interests of the government and 
to the integrity of the procurement system.  Id.

Here, while the crux of Freedom's protest pertains to a contract 
administration issue which is not for review by our Office, Freedom's 
own arguments and actions establish that it does not have a valid 
basis to protest that the specification defects underlying the 
termination and resolicitation did not provide a proper basis for the 
agency to take that action.  

The protest is dismissed.   

Comptroller General
of the United States