TITLE: B-298883; B-298883.2, Management Solutions, L.C. d/b/a EssTech Engineering, December 13, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298883; B-298883.2
DATE: December 13, 2006
*********************************************************************************************
B-298883; B-298883.2, Management Solutions, L.C. d/b/a EssTech Engineering, December 13, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Management Solutions, L.C. d/b/a EssTech Engineering

   File: B-298883; B-298883.2

   Date: December 13, 2006

   Donald A. Stadtler for the protester.

   Brian E. Toland, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency.

   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) was reasonable where, after
   issuance of the RFP, the agency determined that it was required to satisfy
   its requirement from Federal Prison Industries under Federal Acquisition
   Regulation sect. 8.602.

   DECISION

   Management Solutions, L.C. d/b/a EssTech Engineering protests the
   cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. W52H09-06-R-0314, issued
   by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for 809
   indicator control subassemblies. Management Solutions argues that the
   agency did not have a reasonable basis for canceling the solicitation and
   also challenges the agency's concurrent decision to obtain the requirement
   from Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), arguing that the RFP instead
   should have been set aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone
   (HUBZone) small businesses.

   We deny the protest.

   On May 11, 2006, the Army issued the RFP as a small business set-aside,
   with a closing date of June 13. Prior to the closing date, Management
   Solutions sent the contracting officer several e-mail messages requesting
   that the solicitation be set aside for HUBZone small businesses. As a
   consequence of those requests, the contracting officer amended the RFP's
   closing date and issued a sources sought notice, in order to determine
   whether a HUBZone set-aside was appropriate.[1] On August 7, however, the
   Army received a submission from FPI which provided FPI's price and
   delivery terms for the requirement. Upon receipt of that submission, the
   contracting officer realized that the agency had not conducted market
   research to determine whether the product offered by FPI was comparable to
   products available from the private sector, as contemplated by Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.602. In an effort to determine how
   FPI's price and delivery terms compared to those of commercial vendors,
   the contracting officer sent survey questionnaires to the firms that had,
   to date, responded to the RFP. In the surveys, the contracting officer
   sought, among other things, information regarding the firms' price,
   quality, and delivery schedule for the items. Twelve firms responded to
   the surveys. Based on the survey results, the contracting officer
   concluded that FPI's price, quality, and delivery terms were comparable to
   the commercial vendors'; as a result, the contracting officer canceled the
   RFP on September 21 in order to place the requirement with FPI.[2] Agency
   Report, Tab L, Memorandum for Record. This protest followed.

   A contracting agency need only establish a reasonable basis to support a
   decision to cancel an RFP. In this regard, so long as there is a
   reasonable basis for doing so, an agency may cancel a solicitation no
   matter when the information precipitating the cancellation first arises,
   even if it is not until proposals have been submitted and evaluated.
   Glen/Mar Constr., Inc., B-298355, Aug. 3, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 117 at 2.
   Here, given that, as explained below, the agency was required to purchase
   the indicator control subassemblies from FPI, the agency acted reasonably
   in canceling the RFP.

   Agencies are required to purchase supplies manufactured by FPI where,
   after conducting market research, the agency determines that supplies
   produced by FPI are comparable to those of the private sector in terms of
   price, quality, and time of delivery. FAR sect. 8.602(a)(1), (3). While
   the record reflects that the agency did not consider FPI as a source for
   the indicator control subassemblies prior to issuance of the RFP, and thus
   did not conduct market research in advance of the RFP, upon realizing that
   FPI was a potential source for the indicator control subassemblies, the
   contracting officer properly took steps required by the FAR to determine
   whether FPI's item was comparable to that of the private sector in terms
   of price, quality, and time of delivery. Upon concluding that they were
   comparable, the contracting officer was required to purchase the
   subassemblies from FPI and cancel the RFP.

   To the extent the protester argues that the RFP should have been issued as
   a HUBZone set-aside, the argument is without merit. FAR sect. 8.602(a)(3)
   specifically provides that where an FPI item is determined to be
   comparable, the agency "shall . . . purchase the item from FPI." An agency
   may only acquire an item produced by FPI using "competitive procedures,"
   including the HUBZone set-aside procedures set forth under FAR Subpart
   19.13, where the agency determines that the FPI item is not comparable in
   one or more of the areas of price, quality, and time of delivery. FAR
   sect. 8.602(a)(4); FAR sect. 19.1304(a)(1) (stating that the HUBZone
   provisions do not apply to requirements that can be satisfied through
   award to FPI). Since the contracting officer's market research indicated
   that FPI's subassemblies were comparable in all respects, setting aside
   the requirement for HUBZone small business concerns was not an option for
   procuring the items.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The contracting officer extended the RFP closing date numerous times,
   ultimately extending the due date for proposals to September 22.

   [2] In fact, the contracting officer found that as compared to the 12
   responding firms, FPI's price was lower; as the incumbent supplier, FPI's
   quality was proven; and FPI's delivery schedule was more advantageous.