TITLE: B-299424, Global Solutions Network, Inc., April 20, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299424
DATE: April 20, 2007
********************************************************
B-299424, Global Solutions Network, Inc., April 20, 2007

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Global Solutions Network, Inc.

   File: B-299424

   Date: April 20, 2007

   Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester.

   David T. Copenhaver, Esq., and Mary C. Schaffer, Esq., Bureau of the
   Public Debt, Department of the Treasury, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Cancellation of solicitation was unobjectionable where agency reasonably
   determined solicitation may no longer accurately reflect its needs.

   DECISION

   Global Solutions Network, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for
   proposals (RFP) No. BPD-06-R-0015, issued by the Department of the
   Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), for administrative and clerical
   support services. Global asserts that the cancellation lacked a rational
   basis.

   We deny the protest.

   The Bureau of the Public Debt awards and administers contracts on behalf
   of Treasury's FedSource branch offices, which operate as part of the
   agency's franchise fund. The franchise fund primarily provides contracting
   services (including administrative and financial services) to federal
   agencies on a reimbursable basis. The RFP, issued on May 30, 2006,
   contemplated multiple awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
   contracts for a base period, with 5 option periods, for support services
   to be provided under FedSource's Administrative/ Clerical and Light
   Industrial business line. Work under the RFP was to be obtained through
   task orders that would specify the task, location, service to be provided,
   period of performance, and performance measures. RFP at 2.

   Global timely submitted a proposal by the July 21 closing time. According
   to the contracting officer, as proposals were being evaluated in October,
   a working group was established within the agency to consider FedSource's
   future. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. The working group debated
   the agency's continued support of FedSource, and established a timeline of
   1 year to determine the fund's future and the contract needs for BPD. Id.
   On January 24, 2007, due to the possibility that BPD would not support
   FedSource beyond 1 year, the contracting officer decided to cancel the
   solicitation rather than further delay the proposal evaluation. Id.
   Specifically, the contracting officer justified the cancellation on the
   basis that the "foundation of the acquisition plan had been undermined,"
   and that the agency had existing contract vehicles to cover FedSource's
   contracting requirements in the short term. Id. at 3. This protest
   followed.

   Global challenges the agency's rationale for canceling the RFP. The
   protester asserts that the purpose of the solicitation is to provide the
   administrative, clerical and light industrial needs of customer agencies,
   and that this need still exists.

   Cancellation is appropriate where an agency conducts a reassessment that
   suggests the solicitation may not reflect its needs, such that the agency
   is uncertain whether the requirement will exist in the future.
   Peterson-Nunez Joint Venture, B-258788, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 73
   at 4-5. This is the case here. BPD's review brought into question whether
   it would continue to support FedSource; since this uncertainty could be
   resolved in favor of discontinuing the relationship--in which case the
   services covered by the RFP would no longer be required--it provided a
   reasonable basis for the agency to cancel the solicitation. While, as the
   protester argues, the services that would be provided under this contract
   will still be needed by customer agencies in the future, it is BPD's need
   for these services to support the FedSource program--not the government's
   needs as a whole--that is controlling for purposes of determining whether
   the cancellation was permissible. Again, since, based on BPD's review, it
   was questionable whether the agency would continue to need the services
   under the RFP, the agency had a sufficient basis to cancel the
   solicitation. Id.; Dr. Robert J. Telepak, B-247681, June 29, 1992, 92-2
   CPD para. 4 at 4.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel