TITLE: B-309751, The Borenstein Group, Inc., September 26, 2007
BNUMBER: B-309751
DATE: September 26, 2007
********************************************************
B-309751, The Borenstein Group, Inc., September 26, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: The Borenstein Group, Inc.

   File: B-309751

   Date: September 26, 2007

   Gal Borenstein for the protester.

   Capt. John Pritchard, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Eric M. Ransom and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency had a reasonable basis to cancel request for proposals for
   management, manpower, and logistics support where the record shows that
   the agency's requirements could be fulfilled through an existing contract
   determined to be more advantageous to the government.

   DECISION

   The Borenstein Group, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for
   proposals (RFP) No. W91WAW-07-R-0063, issued by the Contracting Center of
   Excellence (CCE) on behalf of the Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve
   (OCAR) for management, manpower, and logistics support for the
   commemoration of the 100^th anniversary of the establishment of the U.S.
   Army Reserve. The Borenstein Group contends that the decision to cancel
   the solicitation lacked a reasonable basis. The Borenstein Group also
   contends that the procurement of this requirement through an existing
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract is outside the
   scope of that contract.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   OCAR created the overall concept of the Army Reserve Commemoration Program
   (Program) to commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the U.S. Army Reserve,
   and broadly identified a requirement to support the Program in December
   2006. On December 21, 2006, OCAR issued Request for Task Order (RFTO)
   07-003 under the U.S. Army Communication and Electronics Command's (CECOM)
   Worldwide Army Advertising (WAA) ID/IQ contract, for Army Reserve public
   relations support for fiscal year 2007. Agency Report (AR), Tab 6. This
   RFTO covered a wide variety of public relations support requirements,
   mostly unrelated to the Program. However, the RFTO did contain the key
   deliverable to "[d]evelop programs required to implement strategic
   campaign plans including the 100 year anniversary of the Army Reserve."
   Id. at 1. CECOM ultimately procured the RFTO 07-003 "program development"
   support requirement on April 13, through issuance of Task Order 14 under
   the WAA contract. AR, Tab 8.

   Meanwhile, between December 2006 and April 2007, OCAR developed a more
   specific list of deliverables for the Program and, on April 12, requested
   that CCE procure the necessary contractor support. AR, Tab 4, at 1. OCAR
   suggests that it submitted this request to CCE, rather than CECOM,
   because, due to changes in OCAR personnel, it was not aware of the
   possibility of using the CECOM WAA contract for these specific
   deliverables at the time.[1] AR at 2-3. Later that month, OCAR and CCE
   issued a "sources sought" synopsis for the management, manpower, and
   logistics support requirement, requesting capabilities statements from
   small businesses. AR, Tab 9.

   Sometime in late April or early May, OCAR discovered that all of its
   Program deliverables might be within the scope of CECOM's WAA contract,
   AR, Tab 5, at 1, and, on May 14, requested that CECOM issue an RFTO under
   the WAA contract for the management, manpower, and logistics support
   requirement. AR, Tab 10. Shortly thereafter, on June 7, CCE proceeded with
   the negotiated procurement by issuing the RFP as a small business
   set-aside. Later in June, however, OCAR began to reconsider continuing the
   CCE negotiated procurement, in light of the CECOM RFTO. After giving
   consideration to the ability of the WAA contractor to begin immediately,
   and the WAA contractor's past performance, management approach, and
   experience, OCAR determined that meeting its requirements through the
   existing WAA contract would be more advantageous to the government, and
   that the CCE RFP should be cancelled.

   On June 26, OCAR requested feedback from CECOM on whether the Program
   requirements being sought were within the scope of the WAA contract. The
   CECOM Procuring Contracting Officer responded with a preliminary
   determination that the deliverables were within scope. AR, Tab 15, at 1.
   OCAR then contacted the CCE contracting officer, and based on that
   communication, determined that cancellation of the CCE RFP was reasonable.
   AR, Tab 16, at 1. On June 26, OCAR requested that CCE cancel the RFP, and
   CCE did so on July 7. Id. The Borenstein Group filed this protest on July
   11.

   DISCUSSION

   The Borenstein Group first protests that the agency's decision to cancel
   the RFP lacked a reasonable basis. The agency argues that it had a
   reasonable basis to cancel the RFP because it discovered that its
   requirements could be met through an existing contract, and ultimately
   determined that using the existing contract for the requirements was in
   the best interest of the government.

   In a negotiated procurement, an agency has broad authority to decide
   whether to cancel a solicitation, and to do so need only establish a
   reasonable basis. VSE Corp., B-290452.2, Apr. 11, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 111
   at 6. A reasonable basis for the cancellation of an RFP exists when an
   agency discovers an existing contract for its requirement that would be
   more advantageous to the government than continuing with the
   procurement.[2] See Astronautics Corp. of Am., B-222414.2, B-222415.2,
   Aug. 5, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 147 at 2-3.

   In this case, OCAR discovered that an existing contract encompassed its
   requirements, determined that the existing contract was more advantageous
   than continuing with the planned negotiated procurement, and on that basis
   cancelled the RFP. We conclude that OCAR's decision had a reasonable
   basis.[3] Although it is unfortunate that an apparent lack of coordination
   at OCAR prevented this RFP from being cancelled earlier, an agency
   properly may cancel a solicitation no matter when the information
   precipitating the cancellation first surfaces or should have been known,
   even if the cancellation occurs after proposals have been submitted.
   Daston Corp., B-292583, B-292583.2, Oct. 20, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 193 at
   3.

   The Borenstein Group also argues that any procurement of the Program
   requirements through the WAA contract is outside the scope of that
   contract. We disagree.[4]

   The WAA contract is a strategic public relations support contract that
   covers a wide variety of advertising, promotional, and publicity programs.
   WAA Statement of Work (SOW) at 1. The SOW lists 13 performance-based
   contract objectives, including the development of "activities designed to
   obtain supportive publicity," and the "[d]evelopment and execution of
   event/promotional programs intended to extend the advertising message . .
   . and create useful opportunities for recruiter interaction . . . ." WAA
   SOW at 1-2. We think that the requirements reflected in the CCE RFP, which
   included the goals of improved recognition of the Army Reserve, increased
   appreciation for the Army Reserve, and improved recruiting and retention
   for the Army Reserve, fall squarely within the scope of the WAA contract.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] We are not convinced that this was the case. We note that the same
   individual was the OCAR point of contact on RFTO 07-003 and the April 12
   CCE purchase request, and presumably would have been familiar with the
   existence and scope of the WAA contract. However, the issue of why OCAR
   pursued parallel contracting strategies is not material to the decision in
   this case.

   [2] We have also found, in the sealed bidding context, that the discovery
   of an existing contract for the requirement meets the "compelling reason"
   standard for upholding a post-bid opening cancellation of an invitation
   for bids. See Colonial Lock Supply Co., B-265645, Sept. 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD
   para. 149.

   [3] The protester also suggests that OCAR's decision to procure the
   requirement through the WAA contract undermines small business interests.
   The fact that the cancelled solicitation was a small business set-aside
   does not factor into the analysis; the standard is simply whether the
   decision to cancel the solicitation had a reasonable basis.

   [4] The protester seems to believe that the agency will be acquiring the
   services under Task Order 14, and argues that the agency's requirements
   fall outside the scope of that task order. In fact, the agency is not
   attempting to add the Program requirements to Task Order 14, rather, it
   plans to award a new task order under the WAA contract, separate and
   distinct from RFTO 07-003/Task Order 14. AR at 5.