BNUMBER:  B-278961.2; B-278961.3 
DATE:  April 17, 1998
TITLE: Jack Faucett Associates--Reconsideration, Protest, and, B-
278961.2; B-278961.3, April 17, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:   Jack Faucett Associates--Reconsideration, Protest, and 
          Costs

File:        B-278961.2; B-278961.3

Date:        April 17, 1998

Jack G. Faucett for the protester.
Mike Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Contracting agency reasonably canceled request for quotations 
where it determined--after reviewing a protest of a purchase 
order--the specifications did not include certain required material 
tasks and omitted necessary information which the agency had intended 
to provide to indicate how quotations would be evaluated.

2.  Dismissal of protest as academic is affirmed where appropriate 
corrective action was taken by the contracting agency prior to the 
filing of the agency's protest report on the protest; reimbursement of 
protester's costs of filing and pursuing protest will not be 
recommended where the agency takes corrective action on or before the 
agency report due date. 

DECISION

Jack Faucett Associates (JFA) protests the cancellation of request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. 26398Q0059, issued by the Department of Health 
and Human Services for services in support of the National Institutes 
of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program.  JFA also requests 
reconsideration of our February 2, 1998, dismissal of its protest 
against the issuance of a purchase order under that RFQ, and requests 
that we recommend payment by the agency of JFA's costs of filing and 
pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees.

We affirm the dismissal of JFA's protest, deny JFA's protest of the 
cancellation of the RFQ, and dismiss JFA's request for costs.

JFA filed its initial protest on January 7, 1998, challenging the 
issuance of a purchase order to Social and Scientific Systems, Inc. 
(SSSI) on the grounds that the agency improperly applied technical 
evaluation factors when the RFQ was issued on a price-only basis, and 
improperly issued the purchase order to a higher-priced vendor.  In 
reviewing that protest, the contracting agency determined that certain 
required material tasks were inadvertently omitted from the RFQ 
statement of work and that the RFQ did not contain the intended 
evaluation factors.  The contracting agency concluded that it was 
necessary to terminate the purchase order, cancel the solicitation, 
and resolicit the requirement on a competitive basis after revising 
the statement of work and evaluation factors to ensure that they are 
appropriate to satisfy the agency's needs.  The proposed corrective 
action was reported to our Office in a letter filed on January 30, 
1998, 10 days before the due date for the agency protest report.

Thereupon, we dismissed JFA's protest as academic, without obtaining 
any comments because the agency had resolved JFA's objection by 
terminating the purchase order and resoliciting the procurement.  Upon 
receiving this dismissal, JFA filed a reconsideration request, arguing 
that it was improper for us to dismiss JFA's protest without giving it 
an opportunity to comment on the agency's proposed corrective action.  
JFA also protested the cancellation of the solicitation, asserting 
that the procurement was not flawed; rather, JFA contends that the 
purchase order decision was improper and that the purchase order 
should be issued to JFA as the low-priced vendor.

JFA's reconsideration request is without merit.  Our Bid Protest 
Regulations provide that we may dismiss a protest at the time the 
propriety of a dismissal becomes clear based upon information provided 
by the contracting agency.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5 (1997).  There is no 
requirement that we first obtain comments from the protester.  High 
Point Sec., Inc.--Recon. and Protest, B-255747.2, B-255747.3, Feb. 22, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  169 at 2.  We dismissed JFA's protest after the 
agency notified our Office that it was cancelling the purchase order 
and would resolicit the requirement under a revised solicitation.  The 
jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest 
provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.A.  sec.  
3551-3556 (West Supp. 1997).  Our role in resolving bid protests is to 
ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition 
are met.  Brown Assocs. Management Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-235906.3, 
Mar. 16, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  299 at 4.  When an agency cancels a purchase 
order and resolicits for its needs, the agency action renders the 
instant protest academic.  It is not our practice to consider academic 
questions.  East West Research, Inc.--Recon., B-233623.2, Apr. 14, 
1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  379 at 2.  

Although JFA asserts that one reason it filed its protest was to 
highlight the serious ongoing procurement deficiency issues at the 
National Institutes of Health's Small Purchase Office, our Office's 
jurisdiction does not involve investigating an agency's procurement 
operation but is limited to considering protests involving 
solicitations actually issued by federal agencies and awards made or 
proposed under those solicitations.  Consequently, we consider only 
protests against specific procurement actions and will not render what 
would be, in effect, an advisory decision.  Events Analysis, 
Inc.--Recon., B-220080.2, Nov. 22, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  589 at 1.  
JFA now protests that the solicitation should not have been canceled 
and that a purchase order should have been issued under the original 
solicitation to the low-priced vendor.  JFA asserts that the expansion 
of the scope of work was not a legitimate reason to cancel the 
solicitation, as evidenced by the fact that the cancellation did not 
occur until after JFA filed its protest. 

A contracting agency need only establish a reasonable basis to support 
a decision to cancel an RFQ.  Shasta Transfer & Storage, B-261172, 
July 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD 
 para.  48 at 2.  The fact that the cancellation occurred after JFA filed 
its protest does not by itself evidence that the cancellation was 
improper; 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 offers (or, as here, quotations) have been submitted and 
evaluated.  See PAI Corp. et al., B-244287.5 et al., Nov. 29, 1991, 
91-2 CPD  para.  508 at 4. 

Here, the agency's actions were reasonable.  The agency reports that 
it was not until it reviewed JFA's protest that it first recognized 
that certain material required tasks were omitted from the RFQ's 
statement of work.  The omitted tasks, included maintaining a database 
of applicants and requestors for the scholarships, maintaining an 
internet web page to disseminate scholarship information, and 
recruitment activities.  Additionally, the agency reports that it 
intended to conduct a competitive procurement and issue a purchase 
order in part on the basis of a relative evaluation of technical 
factors.  Since the original RFQ contained no information as to how 
this selection would be made, the agency determined that a new 
solicitation including appropriate evaluation factors was needed.  The 
decision to cancel the purchase order and the solicitation was 
reasonable because the RFQ, as issued, did not adequately define the 
agency's needs and might not have resulted in an award that was most 
advantageous to the government.  

Regarding protest costs, our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(e), provide that where an agency takes corrective action in 
response to a protest, we may recommend that the agency pay protest 
costs, including attorneys' fees; however, we will make such a 
recommendation only where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective 
action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  CSL Birmingham 
Assocs.; IRS Partners--Birmingham--Entitlement to Costs, B-251931.4, 
B-251931.5, Aug. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  82 at 3.

Here, the agency took corrective action 10 days before the date on 
which it was required to file the agency report in our Office.  We 
consider this to have been reasonably prompt under the circumstances.  
Because our Regulation is designed to encourage agencies to take 
prompt corrective action, where appropriate, as a general rule, if an 
agency takes corrective action in response to a protest by the due 
date of its protest report, we regard such action as prompt and 
decline to consider a request to recommend reimbursement of protest 
costs.  CDIC, Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-277526.2, Aug. 18, 1997, 
97-2 CPD  para.  52 at 2.  Accordingly, we have no basis to recommend that 
JFA be reimbursed for its bid protest costs.

The protest is denied, our prior dismissal is affirmed, and the 
request for a recommendation of reimbursement of costs is dismissed.

Comptroller General 
of the United States