TITLE:  Logistics Solutions Group, Inc., B-294604.7, B-294604.8, July 28, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-294604.7, B-294604.8
DATE:  July 28, 2005
**********************************************************************
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a;GAO Protective
Order. No party requested redactions;we are therefore releasing the
decision in its entirety.

   Decision

   Matter of: Logistics Solutions Group, Inc.

   File: B-294604.7, B-294604.8

   Date: July 28, 2005

   Robert E. Korroch, Esq., and Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq., Williams
Mullen, for the protester.

   Capt. Peter G. Hartman, and Capt. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the
Army, for the agency.

   Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, 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 was reasonable where the original solicitation no longer
represented the agency's actual needs. 

   DECISION

   Logistics Solutions Group, Inc. protests the decision by the Department of
the Army to cancel request for proposals (RFP) No. W912D1-04-R-0019, which
sought proposals to provide Standard Army Management Information Systems
(STAMIS) training, and Combat Service Support Automation Management Office
(CSSAMO) support services.[1]

   We deny the protests in part and dismiss them in part.

   The requiring activity, the Coalition Forces Land Component Command
(CFLCC), is responsible for providing logistical support for Army forces
deployed in Operation Iraqi, Enduring Freedom, and the Horn of Africa.  To
fulfill these missions, the requiring activity requires training and
support services to accommodate temporary changes in the force structure. 
The then-existing contract for these services expired on February 29,
2004, but was extended for a total of 6 months to permit the solicitation
and award of a follow-on contract.

   The follow-on RFP was issued on March 21, and as amended, it contemplated
the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with 3 option years. 
Award was to be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically
acceptable proposal, with proposals evaluated on the basis of several
technical factors, past performance, and price.  RFP at 35-36.  Several
proposals were received and evaluated by the agency.  The agency
determined that the proposal submitted by The Logistics Company (TLC) was
the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal and made award to that
firm on August 19.  By letters dated August 22, the agency notified the
unsuccessful offerors of the award. 

   On August 27, an unsuccessful offeror, Integration Technologies Group,
Inc., filed an initial protest in our Office (B-294604) objecting to the
award to TLC.  On October 7, Logistics also protested the same award,
which we dismissed as untimely
(B-294604.4).  Thereafter, by letter dated October 21, the agency advised
our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to
Integration Technologies' protest, as supplemented.  Specifically, the
agency decided to reevaluate all initial proposals, establish a
competitive range, conduct discussions, request and evaluate final revised
proposals, and make a new selection decision.  Accordingly, on
October 22, we dismissed Integration Technologies' protests as academic
(B-294604; B-294604.2; B-294604.3; B-294604.5).

   Between the time Integration Technologies' initial protest was filed and
the agency's decision to take corrective action, the contracting officer
issued a sole-source bridge contract to TLC on August 31, 2004--the only
contractor who had provided these services in theater--because of the
requiring activity's on-going need for these support services. 
Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact at 1.

   On March 15, 2005, the requiring activity, notified the contracting
officer that its needs had changed.  Specifically, the contracting officer
was advised:

   I would like to request that [the contracting officer] change the scope of
the solicitation for the CSSAMO contract.  I don't believe the existing
statement of work is valid as we move forward.  It has been over a year
since the last solicitation was executed, and in that time the
requirements of the civilian CSSAMO have broadened based on what we need
in theater.  As we reduce the military footprint in theater, the civilian
CCSAMO will have to assume more of the responsibilities for customer unit
support.  Additionally, the technical criteria with which the responses to
the previous solicitation were evaluated have changed and require that the
contractor have an enhanced skill set.  We need to change the criteria we
use to evaluate responses to focus on technical capabilities versus
meeting a list of administrative documents submitted in response to the
solicitation.

   Agency Report (AR) (B-294604.7), exh. 6, CFLCC's E-mail (Mar. 15, 2005). 
As a result of that request, the contracting officer decided to cancel the
solicitation and issue a revised solicitation that reflected the requiring
activity's current minimum needs.  As she explained in her e-mail to the
protester:

   Review of the solicitation W912D1-04-R-0019 reveals that the statement of
work (SOW) as stated no longer represents the needs of the CSSAMO/STAMIS
mission in theatre.  Solicitation W912D1-04-R-0019 will not be awarded. 
The solicitation will be cancelled and replaced with a new solicitation,
containing a SOW that represents the needs of CSSAMO/STAMIS in theatre. 

   Protest (B-294604.8), exh. 2, Contracting Officer's E-mail (Apr. 10,
2005).  On
April 25, the Army issued revised solicitation No. W912D1-05-R-0020, and
this protest followed. 

   Logistics argues that the agency's decision to cancel the original
solicitation lacks a reasonable basis.  The protester contends that the
new solicitation's SOW is virtually the same as that of the original
solicitation.  Protest at 4.  In a negotiated procurement such as this
one, the contracting officer has broad authority to decide whether to
cancel a solicitation and need only establish a reasonable basis for doing
so.  USA Elecs., B-283269.2, Oct. 5, 1999, 99-2 CPD paragraph 67 at 3.  A
reasonable basis to cancel exists when, for example, an agency determines
that a solicitation does not accurately reflect its needs, or where there
is a material increase in the services needed to satisfy the agency's
requirements, such that cancellation of the solicitation and issuance of a
revised solicitation is appropriate.  DataTrak Consulting, Inc.,
B-292502 et al., Sept. 26, 2003, 2003 CPD paragraph 169 at 5;
Surgi-Textile, B-289370,
Feb. 7, 2002, 2002 CPD paragraph 38 at 2.  Our review of the record here
provides no basis for us to question the reasonableness of the agency's
cancellation. 

   The record shows that the original solicitation's requirements fail to
reflect the requiring activity's current, actual needs and the record
delineates at least four areas of the original SOW that were revised. 
Each of these changes affects material specifications that were more
accurately defined to better reflect the agency's actual needs, which, in
our view, warrant the agency's cancellation of the original solicitation. 
The protester's argument that the revised solicitation is for the same
effort and scope of work as the original solicitation is simply incorrect.

   For instance, the number of STAMIS systems to be supported by the
successful contractor was increased in the revised solicitation to include
(1) Property Book and Unit Supply--Enhanced, (2) C4 Very Small Aperture
Terminal Satellite Communications System, (3) Combat Service Support Very
Small Aperture Terminal Satellite Communications System, and (4) Combat
Service Support Automated Information System Interface.  The record also
shows that the original SOW was revised to include major levels of effort,
namely, (1) Contract level management,
(2) STAMIS maintenance services, (3) STAMIS management services, (4)
STAMIS support services, and (5) STAMIS training services.  In addition,
as the Army points out, the basis for award was changed from
lowest-priced, technically acceptable to comparatively evaluate technical
proposals and price.  The Army further reports that of the four proposals
it received in response to the revised solicitation, one was from a new
offeror.

   Since it is apparent from the record that the agency's requirements have
changed substantially from those solicited, we find the Army's decision to
cancel and resolicit was reasonable.  The protester's mere disagreement
with the agency's otherwise reasonable bases for cancellation provides no
basis to question the propriety of that cancellation.  Nor is there any
evidence in the record supporting the protester's contention that the
proffered rationale for cancellation is merely a pretext by the agency to
manipulate the procurement process because, as part of the October 21,
2004 corrective action, the agency had agreed to reevaluate proposals. 
Government officials are presumed to act in good faith and, where a
protester contends that contracting officials are motivated by bad faith,
it must provide convincing proof, since our Office will not attribute
unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of
inference and suppositions.  American Artisan Prods., Inc.,
B-292559, B-292559.2, Oct. 7, 2003, 2003 CPD paragraph 176 at 9; Chenega
Mgmt., LLC,
B-290598, Aug. 8, 2002, 2002 CPD paragraph 143 at 4.  Here, other than
innuendo, Logistics has provided no support for its bad faith allegation. 
In any event, an agency may cancel a solicitation no matter when the
information precipitating the cancellation first arises.  DataTrak
Consulting, Inc., B-292502 et al., supra, at 5.

   To the extent Logistics argues that the Army should have amended rather
than cancel the original solicitation, this argument is without merit. 
See Protester's Comments at 4-5.  Federal Acquisition Regulation Section
15.206(e) requires the contracting officer to cancel the original
solicitation and issue a new one, if an amendment would be so substantial
as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have
anticipated.  On the basis of the record before us, we think the changes
in the agency's current minimum needs fall within this provision.  See VSE
Corp., B-290452.2, Apr. 11, 2005, 2005 CPD paragraph 111.

   Finally, on April 21, 2005, Logistics filed an agency-level protest
challenging the noncompetitive award to TLC, made on August 31, 2004,
which protest allegedly was based upon information obtained from the
contracting officer on April 11, 2005.  By letter of May 9, the agency
dismissed the protest as untimely finding that the protester knew or
should have known prior to April 11 of the bridge contract and of TLC's
performance under this contract.  This protest to our Office followed. 
The Army requests that we dismiss Logistics protest because its
agency-level protest was untimely filed.

   Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission
of protests.  Under these rules, a protest based on other than alleged
improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar
days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for
protest, whichever is earlier.  4 C.F.R.
Section 21.2(a)(2) (2005).  Further, our Regulations provide that a matter
initially protested to the contracting agency will be considered only if
the initial protest was filed within the time limits for filing a protest
with our Office, unless the contracting agency imposes a more stringent
time for filing, in which case the agency's time for filing will control. 
Id. Section 21.2(a)(3).

   As stated in its agency-level protest, the protester's allegation was
based upon information first learned from the contracting officer on April
11, 2005.  According to the protester, on April 11, 2005 it sent an e-mail
to the contracting officer in which the firm stated:

   It is our understanding that the CSSAMO service that was initially awarded
under this solicitation, and subsequently protested, has been continuously
provided by the awarded contractor.  [Logistics] understands that these
services may be being procured through extensions, purchase orders, or
other means of procurement.  [Logistics] would like the opportunity to
provide the required support...

   Protest (B-294604.8), exh. 3, Protester's E-mail to Contracting Officer
(Apr. 11, 2005). 

   The protester states that the contracting officer's April 11 e-mail
response to this inquiry formed the basis for protest.  Protest
(B-294604.8) at 3-4.  However, given the substantial passage of time since
the sole-source bridge contract was awarded, we conclude that Logistics's
agency-level protest was untimely; therefore, its subsequent protest to
our Office will not be considered.  A protester is required to diligently
pursue all information that may give rise to a protest issue.  Here, as
quoted above, Logistics was aware that the CSSAMO services were being
provided, yet the protester waited approximately 7 months before it
requested and received information from the contracting officer concerning
the performance of these services.  Since it is not apparent from the
record (Logistics does not explain) why the protester could not have
discovered the basis for TLC's performance of the CSSAMO services prior to
April 11, this delay simply does not meet our requirements for the
expeditious pursuit of information and this protest is dismissed.  See
Professional Rehab. Consultants, Inc., B-275871, Feb. 28, 1997, 97-1 CPD
paragraph 94 at 2-3; cf., VSE Corp.; Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.,
B-290452.3 et al., May 23, 2005, 2005 CPD paragraph 103.

   The protests are denied in part and dismissed in part.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The STAMIS is a family of automated logistical, maintenance and
assistance systems.  The CSSAMO provides support for the Army's STAMIS
systems, including software, functional, technical, communications, and
limited hardware.  The CSSAMO also provides training evaluation of unit
personnel and staff assistance on the use and implementation of STAMIS to
the command.  RFP at 7.