TITLE:   USA Electronics, B-283269.2, October 5, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283269.2
DATE:  October 5, 1999
**********************************************************************
USA Electronics, B-283269.2, October 5, 1999

Decision

Matter of: USA Electronics

File: B-283269.2

Date: October 5, 1999

Paul D. Anderson for the protester.

Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and John H. Eckhardt, Esq., Department of the
Army, 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 request for quotations for power assemblies is reasonable
where agency determined that the solicitation failed to reflect its minimum
needs.

DECISION

USA Electronics protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ)
No. DAAB07-99-Q-D161, issued by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics
Command (CECOM), for eight power assemblies. The protester asserts that the
cancellation was motivated by the agency?s desire to avoid issuing a
purchase order to USA Electronics.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued as a small business set-aside on June 18, 1999, under the
simplified acquisition procedures in Part 13 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. [1] Firms were to provide a unit price and total price for eight
intermediate power assemblies, national stock number (NSN) 5895-01-197-4242,
plus a unit and total price for an option quantity of an additional eight
intermediate power assemblies. RFQ sect. B.

Quotations were received from three vendors by the July 9 due date, of which
USA Electronics?s quotation of $1,250 per unit was low. Contracting
Officer?s Statement at 1. Because this quote was significantly lower than
both the next low quote and the historical price, the agency notified USA
Electronics that the firm may have made a mistake in the preparation of its
quotation and requested that USA Electronics verify its quote. Agency
Report, Tab 2, Letter from Agency to Protester 1 (July 13, 1999). After the
protester responded that one of its vendor?s quotes was incorrect and that
USA Electronics?s correct unit price was $8,742.01, Agency Report, Tab 3,
Letter from Protester to Agency 1 (July 13, 1999), the Army requested that
USA Electronics submit evidence to support the claim of mistake and its
intended quote. [2] Agency Report, Tab 5, Letter from Agency to Protester 1
(July 22, 1999). In response, USA Electronics submitted four documents which
the protester states show the misquoted and corrected part prices and USA
Electronics?s markup for each price. Agency Report, Tab 6, Letter from
Protester to Agency
(July 23, 1999).

Upon review, the contracting officer determined that the documents submitted
by USA Electronics did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of a
mistake or the intended price. However, before the agency notified the
protester of this determination, the contracting officer received a
procurement work directive from the item manager which significantly
increased the number of power assemblies required by the agency. [3] Agency
Report, Tab 7, Procurement Work Directive, at 1. The work directive also
increased the option quantity. The contracting officer determined that the
contract value for the increased quantity of power assemblies would be
greater than the $100,000 simplified acquisition procedures ceiling. Based
on the increased need, the anticipated contract value, and the contracting
officer?s belief that the increased requirement could result in better
prices, the contracting officer determined to cancel the RFQ and resolicit
under a revised solicitation. After the solicitation was canceled, USA
Electronics filed this protest.

USA Electronics argues that rather than cancel the solicitation, the Army
should issue a purchase order to the protester under the original RFQ based
on its low corrected price, and obtain any needed additional quantity under
the option clause. The protester contends that FAR sect. 13.5 [4] allows the
Army to use simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items, as
required here, for acquisitions up to $5,000,000. Thus, USA Electronics
argues that CECOM?s justification is improper and that cancellation was
motivated by the agency?s desire to avoid awarding to USA Electronics.

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; Tony Ingoglia Salami and Cheese, Inc., B-244452,
Sept. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 268 at 3. A reasonable basis to cancel exists
when there is a material increase in the quantity needed to satisfy the
agency?s requirements, Switlik Parachute Co., Inc., B-275539, Mar. 3, 1997,
97-1 CPD para. 113 at 3, or when a new solicitation presents the potential for
cost savings. Eastman Kodak Co., B-271009, May 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 215 at 4,
recon. denied, B-271009.2, Oct. 7, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 136.

Here, the Army?s decision to cancel and resolicit was reasonable based on a
material change in the scope of the requirement. The record shows that the
Army?s legitimate required quantity has materially increased and that,
including the option quantity, the agency requires a significantly greater
number of assemblies than was specified under the RFQ at issue. The
protester?s argument that the agency could use the option clause to order
the additional units is without merit since exercise of the option would not
permit the Army to obtain all of the currently required power assemblies.
Moreover, because costs generally decrease as quantities increase, procuring
the increased quantity under a new solicitation reasonably could be expected
to result in a lower unit price than proceeding with the current RFQ. These
considerations provide a reasonable basis for the agency?s determination to
cancel

and resolicit for the increased quantity, notwithstanding the protester?s
contention that the decision to cancel was a pretext to avoid issuing a
purchase order to USA Electronics. [5]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Part 13 prescribes the policies and procedures for the acquisition of
supplies and services, including construction, research and development, and
commercial items, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed $100,000.
FAR sect. 13.000.

2. While the Army was evaluating the alleged mistake in USA Electronics?s
quote, the protester filed a protest with our Office, objecting to the
agency?s issuance of a purchase order to any other vendor under the RFQ. On
July 22, we dismissed this protest as premature because the Army had not yet
decided whether to permit USA Electronics to correct the alleged mistake in
its quotation.

3. The Army has not yet synopsized the reprocurement and this decision does
not disclose the specific number of intermediate power assemblies required
because of the agency?s stated concern about the possible impact of this
advance procurement information on the competitive positions of the vendors.

4. FAR sect. 13.5 authorizes, as a test program, use of simplified procedures
for the acquisition of supplies and services in amounts greater than the
$100,000 simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $5,000,000,
including options, where the agency reasonably expects that the offers will
include only commercial items. FAR

sect. 13.500(a).

5. USA Electronics?s reliance on the possibility of a $5,000,000 ceiling
under FAR sect. 13.5 is misplaced. Specifically, while the regulation provides
that agencies shall employ the simplified acquisition procedures authorized
by the test program to the maximum extent practicable, FAR sect. 13.500(b),
there is no indication that the subpart was applied in this procurement. In
any event, we need not address this issue because, as explained above, we
find reasonable the agency?s determination to cancel and resolicit based on
its increased requirement.