TITLE:  Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-289342.4, March 26, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-289342.4
DATE:  March 26, 2002
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Global Solutions Network, Inc.

File: B-289342.4

Date: March 26, 2002

Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel,
for the protester.

Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., and Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Williams,
Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, for Phoenix Group, Inc., an intervenor.

Stephen R. Jones, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency.

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Cancellation of solicitation in negotiated procurement is not objectionable
where agency's changed requirements, including changed evaluation scheme,
provided a reasonable basis for the cancellation.

DECISION

Global Solutions Network, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for
proposals (RFP) No. 3-JC-111-11, issued by the Department of Labor for Job
Corps program services in the Washington, D.C. area. The protester contends
that the cancellation lacks a reasonable basis; Global contends that the
contracting officer instead should have amended the solicitation and
requested revised proposals.

We deny the protest.

The Job Corps provides residential occupational training, education,
counseling, career transitioning and other support services to young adults
from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The RFP, a small business
set-aside, contemplated the award of a contract for a 2-year base period
with three 1-year options, for the operation of the Potomac Job Corps
Center. The RFP also included a requirement for the development and
operation of a National Development Center (NDC), a separate model center
providing, among other things, Job Corps staff development training and
internships, testing of new policy initiatives, development opportunities
for potential small business center operators, and an informational visitors
center. RFP at B-1, F-1, and G-6. The solicitation, as amended, included a
restriction providing that the awardee under the RFP could not operate (or
subcontract at) other centers until 1 year after the conclusion of the
contract; operators/subcontractors at other centers also could not compete
for the operations contract/subcontracts at the Potomac Job Corps Center.
RFP at C-19; amend. 1.

Section M of the RFP, as amended, provided the evaluation scheme for award.
The technical proposal was to be evaluated under eight identified subfactors
and was worth 62 of the total available 150 evaluation points; the NDC
requirement was worth 50 points (i.e., one-third of the total available
points); and past performance (25 points), staff qualifications (5 points),
and cost justification (8 points) were other factors for consideration.
Offerors were advised to prepare their proposals in line with these point
values which, the RFP explained, indicated the importance of the various
portions of the proposals. Technical factors were to be more important than
cost. RFP at M-2, M-11. Three offers were received in response to the RFP.
An award was made to Phoenix Group, Inc., the firm determined to have
submitted the proposal most advantageous to the government.

Global filed a protest with our Office challenging, among other things, the
agency's failure to inform offerors of the basis upon which their NDC
proposals would be evaluated. Global specifically questioned the agency's
actions in increasing the point value of the NDC evaluation factor to equal
one-third of the available evaluation points without providing any
explanation or justification for the increased value. [1] Global also
challenged the evaluation of the past performance and cost proposals, the
adequacy of discussions held with the firm, and the agency's alleged failure
to perform a technical/cost tradeoff, and raised alleged conflicts of
interest between agency personnel and the awardee.

The agency reports that, while reviewing the procurement in response to the
protest, it found merit in Global's protest of the RFP's evaluation terms
regarding the NDC component of the RFP's requirements. The agency states
that it concluded that it had failed to develop a clear idea of what it
expected from the NDC and, as a result, decided that it would postpone
creation of the NDC until a workable model was formulated. Accordingly, the
agency concluded that amendment of the solicitation to include additional
criteria related to the NDC was not a viable option. Rather, the agency
decided to remove the NDC requirement from the Potomac Job Corps Center
procurement and to resolicit later on the basis of its changed requirements.
[2] The agency terminated the Phoenix contract, cancelled the RFP, and
issued a new solicitation, RFP No. 3-JC-212-11, for the operation of the
Potomac Job Corps Center which eliminated any requirement for the NDC. In
light of the agency's action, on January 8, 2002, we dismissed Global's
protests of the award to Phoenix as academic.

Global now protests the agency's cancellation of the original Potomac Job
Corps Center/NDC solicitation as lacking any reasonable basis. The protester
contends that the contracting officer instead should have amended the
solicitation because the agency's asserted changes to its requirements are,
according to Global, only "superficial" and fail to justify the
cancellation.

In a negotiated procurement, an agency has broad authority to decide whether
to cancel a solicitation. As long as an agency has a reasonable basis for
doing so, it may cancel a solicitation regardless of 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, after a contract has been awarded or, as here,
after the filing of a GAO protest against the award. See Lackland 21st
Century Servs. Consolidated, B-285938.7, B-285938.8, Dec. 4, 2001, 2001 CPD
para. 197 at 5. A reasonable basis for cancellation exists when, for example, a
solicitation is ambiguous or overstates the agency's minimum needs, such
that the cancellation of the solicitation and the issuance of a revised
solicitation would present the potential for increased competition. See
A-Tek, Inc., B-286967, Mar. 22, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 57 at 2-3; Chant Eng'g Co.,
Inc., B-270149.2, Feb. 14, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 96 at 2.

As discussed below, our review of the record confirms the reasonableness of
the agency's cancellation of the RFP. The agency's needs and thus, its
procurement terms, have changed substantially. Elimination of the NDC
requirements alone affects several significant areas of the original
solicitation. Although the total number of students to be served (500) may
remain the same, the composition of the student population to be served and
the courses offered have changed-for example, 75 student slots previously
allotted for advance training at the NDC have been eliminated, allowing for
more students to attend the Potomac Job Corps Center, and allowing
additional vocational training classes (e.g., plastering, cement masonry,
and plumbing) that were to be phased out under the original solicitation.
The agency points out that deletion of the NDC component also eliminates the
need for the restriction barring participation by certain contractors,
thereby increasing the potential for additional competition, since those
contractors currently operating or interested in operating other centers may
now participate in the competition for operation of the Potomac Job Corps
Center.

Most importantly, our review of the record shows that, without the NDC
component, the overall evaluation scheme necessarily must change materially
from that which offerors were instructed to follow in preparing their
proposals, and upon which those proposals were to be evaluated for award.
For instance, since one-third of the available evaluation points under the
original solicitation had been assigned to the NDC factor, offerors may have
emphasized that section of their proposals in order to obtain those
available points, perhaps placing less emphasis on other aspects of their
proposals which may now become the paramount factors for consideration for
award.

In short, we see no basis in the record for Global's argument that the cited
changes in agency requirements are only "superficial" and thus insufficient
to support the cancellation determination. [3] Rather, we conclude that the
changes cited by the agency are substantial not only in terms of the scope
of the contract, but also in terms of their potential effects on proposal
preparation, evaluation of proposals for award, and the pool of prospective
competitors. Accordingly, we see no reason to question the reasonableness of
the contracting officer's cancellation of the solicitation. [4]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The RFP initially assigned 20 of 120 total points to the NDC component.
The agency subsequently amended the RFP to assign 50 points to the NDC
component and to increase the total points available to 150. RFP amend. 2.

2. The agency also notes that resolicitation, rather than amendment, allows
the agency to more clearly incorporate the latest version of its Policy and
Requirements Handbook (PRH), which, according to the agency, changed the
requirements and structure of the Job Corps program. While the PRH was
referenced in an amendment to the RFP, the RFP also contained specific
references to the older version of the PRH which are now obsolete.

3. Global's mere speculation that the agency canceled the RFP to escape
review of the protester's earlier conflict of interest challenges does not
provide a sufficient basis to question the agency's conduct. See Chant Eng'g
Co., Inc., supra, at 3.

4. The protester has advised our Office that the agency has recently
cancelled solicitation No. 3-JC-212-11, which had been issued to meet the
agency's Potomac Job Corps Center requirements. Global, which recently filed
a separate protest against this action, argues that this recent cancellation
undermines the agency's cited bases for cancellation of the original
solicitation. We do not agree. Regardless of the recent cancellation of the
attempted resolicitation, the agency has adequately shown that its needs
have changed substantially from those included in its original solicitation
and that the cancellation of that solicitation was appropriate.