TITLE: B-311070; B-311070.2, North Shore Medical Labs, Inc.; Advanced BioMedical Laboratories, LLC, April 21, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311070; B-311070.2
DATE: April 21, 2008
***********************************************************************************************************
B-311070; B-311070.2, North Shore Medical Labs, Inc.; Advanced BioMedical Laboratories, LLC, April 21, 2008

   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: North Shore Medical Labs, Inc.; Advanced BioMedical
   Laboratories, LLC

   File: B-311070; B-311070.2

   Date: April 21, 2008

   Adam W. Downs, Esq., Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, for North Shore
   Medical Labs, Inc.; and Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Philip M. Dearborn, Esq.,
   Gunjan R.
   Talati, Esq., Desiree Lomer-Clarke, Esq., and Isaias Alba IV, Esq.,
   PilieroMazza PLLC, for Advanced BioMedical Laboratories, LLC, the
   protesters.

   Capt. Charles D. Halverson, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protests against cancellation of solicitation are denied where agency
   reasonably determined that the solicitation did not adequately set forth
   the agency's needs and that enhanced competition could result from a
   change in the requirements.

   DECISION

   North Shore Medical Labs, Inc. (NSML) and Advanced Biomedical
   Laboratories, LLC, (ABML) protests the cancellation of request for
   proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-07-R-0019, a small business set-aside issued by
   the Department of the Army, for laboratory services. The protesters
   contend that the agency lacks a reasonable basis for the cancellation and
   that the agency should instead have amended the solicitation, held
   discussions and requested revised proposals.

   We deny the protests.

   This RFP is for a contractor to provide testing services for the detection
   of antibodies that work against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) for
   various military organizations. These services have been provided by a
   large business since 1997. Based upon market research, the agency decided
   that this requirement could be set aside for small business concerns. A
   solicitation for these services, set aside for small business concerns,
   was issued, but was ultimately cancelled on March 27, 2007. [1] This RFP,
   also set aside for small business concerns, was issued on
   August 18.

   The RFP provided for the award of a
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract, under which
   fixed-price task orders would be issued to the awardee for a base 1-year
   period with four 1-year options. The statement of work (SOW) allowed for a
   90-day transition period during which the awardee and the incumbent would
   phase-in/phase-out respectively. RFP at 24.

   Determination of the most advantageous proposal was to be based on six
   evaluation factors: (1) technical capability, (2) quality control, (3)
   management capability and experience, (4) past and present performance,
   (5) financial capability, and (6) price/cost. Factors (1), (3) and (5)
   were equal in importance and their combined weight was greater than the
   combined weight of the equally weighted factors (2) and (4). The combined
   weight of the non-price/cost factors was more important than price/cost.
   The first three factors each had four subfactors. RFP at 164. As relevant
   to this protest, subfactor (1B), standard operating procedures (SOP)
   manual, required the offeror to "provide a comprehensive SOP manual that
   specifically delineate[s] the contractor's plan of action for providing
   services required by this contract, which establishes and explains its
   methodology for how it proposes to accomplish each function of the SOW
   requirements," and subfactor (2B), inspection techniques, required the
   offeror to "provide a description of its current quality control plan and
   describe what measures and controls will be taken to ensure that quality
   control inspections are met." RFP at 155-56. The RFP advised that the
   adjectival ratings of "excellent," "good," "satisfactory," "marginal," and
   "unsatisfactory" would be used in the evaluation of the technical
   proposals. RFP at 162-63. The RFP further provided that to receive
   consideration for award, a rating of satisfactory must be achieved in all
   factors, and that in order for a factor to be considered satisfactory or
   above, all subfactors within the factor must be rated at least
   satisfactory or above. RFP at 162.

   The agency received four proposals by the September 28 due date for the
   receipt of proposals. The agency only evaluated three of the proposals
   because one of the proposals did not comply with the proposal submission
   instructions. Agency Report (AR) at 6. The source selection evaluation
   board (SSEB) [2] convened and during the course of its deliberations
   determined that all three proposals were unsatisfactory because they
   provided insufficient information to indicate that these offerors could
   satisfy the agency's requirements.

   The SSEB also determined that the solicitation was inadequate, in that it
   did not request the documentation necessary for the SSEB to properly
   determine if the offerors met the agency's needs. Specifically with regard
   to subfactor (1B), SOP manual, it appeared, based upon the proposals
   submitted, that the offerors used the term "SOP" in a different manner
   from the Army, and that the SOPs that the offerors submitted did not have
   enough information for the SSEB to properly assess the potential offeror's
   technical capabilities for satisfying the agency's requirements.[3] With
   regard to subfactor (2B), inspection techniques, the evaluation disclosed
   that this subfactor did not include all of the elements that were
   necessary to ensure that quality control inspections could be met.
   Additionally, the evaluators noted that some offerors did not have
   adequate personnel or adequate space to perform the services, as required
   by the solicitation, if only 90 days were allotted for transition, and
   that 120 to 180 days would be required to ensure the agency's requirements
   could be satisfied.

   The agency explored whether it was feasible or proper to amend the RFP to
   address these concerns, or whether it should cancel the RFP and resolicit.
   The contracting officer determined that because no proposals were
   satisfactory, in part because of the deficient RFP, and because "there was
   a significant probability that more offerors would have responded to the
   solicitation had they known that the transition period would be 120 days
   or 180 days rather than 90 days," the RFP would have to be substantially
   changed to address these concerns, and "more offerors will submit
   proposals to the Army's subsequent Solicitation and that the current
   offerors will be in a better position to submit proposals that are
   technically acceptable." Contracting Officer's Statement at 3-4.

   On January 4, 2008, the agency issued amendment 8 to the RFP, which stated
   "[t]his solicitation has been cancelled in its entirety due to changes in
   the requirement." NSML then protested to our Office, and ABML filed an
   agency-level protest, and after the agency denied that protest, protested
   to our Office.

   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.305(b) provides, with regard
   to competitive negotiated acquisitions, "[t]he source selection authority
   may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing
   so is in the best interest of the Government." We have consistently
   recognized that an agency has broad authority to decide whether to cancel
   a solicitation issued under competitive negotiated procedures, and to do
   so need only establish a reasonable basis. We have recognized that a
   reasonable basis for cancellation exists and cancellation is appropriate
   when a solicitation does not accurately reflect the agency's requirements,
   particularly where cancellation of the solicitation and the issuance of a
   revised solicitation would present the potential for increased
   competition. If a reasonable basis exists to cancel a solicitation, an
   agency may cancel the solicitation regardless of when the information
   first surfaces or should have been known, even if the solicitation is not
   canceled until after proposals have been submitted and evaluated, or even
   if discovered during the course of a protest. SEI Group, Inc., B-299108,
   Feb. 6, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 35 at 3; VSE Corp., B-290452.2, Apr. 11,
   2005, 2005 CPD para. 111 at 6.

   Here, the contracting officer's decision to cancel this RFP was
   reasonable. First, the agency determined that the solicitation did not
   adequately meet its needs. As explained above, the SSEB determined that
   the solicitation had major omissions and ambiguities that would require
   substantial changes to correct. Specifically regarding subfactor (1B),
   because of omissions in the RFP, the SOPs that offerors submitted did not
   have enough information for the SSEB to properly assess the potential
   offerors' technical capabilities. Subfactor (2B) was found not to
   encompass all elements that were necessary to ensure that quality control
   inspections could be met. Where, as here, a solicitation no longer
   accurately reflects an agency's requirements, and resolicitation could
   result in increased competition, cancellation of the solicitation is
   appropriate. See Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-289342.4, Mar. 26,
   2002, 2002 CPD para. 64 at 3.

   Moreover, the contracting officer also determined that it did not appear
   that some of the present offerors had the capability to satisfy the 90-day
   transition requirement, and the agency reasonably believed that an
   increase in the period for the new awardee to transition to providing the
   required services from 90 days to 120 days, or possibly 180 days, could
   potentially result in increased competition. An agency may cancel a
   solicitation where it materially overstates the agency's requirements and
   there is a potential enhanced competition if the requirements are relaxed.
   Labatt Food Serv., Inc., B-259900, May 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 229 at 3-4.
   Here, while the protesters assert that there is no likelihood of
   additional competition, the record shows that five small business firms
   attended the pre-proposal conference under the predecessor solicitation,
   yet only three proposals were ultimately evaluated.[4] Thus, based on the
   record, the contracting officer had a reasonable belief that more small
   businesses could submit satisfactory proposals if the requirement was
   revised to include a longer transition period.

   Under the circumstances, particularly given that none of the proposals
   received were satisfactory, the agency acted reasonably in canceling
   rather than amending the RFP to make material changes in the solicitation
   requirements and in order to possibly obtain more competition.

   The protesters argue that the agency cancellation was a pretext to avoid
   further competition among small business offerors and to continue the
   contract with the incumbent, a large business. The record does not support
   the protesters' speculation Indeed, the contracting officer has clearly
   expressed her intention to issue the new solicitation as a small business
   set-aside. Supp. AR, attach. 1, Declaration of Contracting Officer (Mar.
   26, 2008). Until the contracting officer issues a new solicitation or
   extends the incumbent's contract, any assertion that the Army is not going
   to set this procurement aside for small businesses is premature.[5]
   Ystueta Inc., B-296628.4, Feb. 27, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 46 at 2.

   The protests are denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] A protest to our Office of this set-aside decision was denied in
   ViroMed Labs., B-298931, Dec. 20, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 4.

   [2] Each member of the SSEB was affiliated with a directorate that
   required the testing services outlined in the solicitation.

   [3] For example, according to the agency, subfactor 1(B) did not require
   offerors to provide adequate documentation to demonstrate a full
   understanding of how the offerors would report Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent
   Assay test results to the Government HIV Diagnostic and Reference
   Laboratory and/or a plan of action for performing services under this
   requirement. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2.

   [4] As stated above, one firm did not submit a proposal and another firm
   submitted a proposal, which was not evaluated by the agency because it did
   not comply with the proposal submission instructions.

   [5] The protesters cite VSE Corp.; Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc.,
   B-290542.3 et al., May 23, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 103, and New Breed Leasing
   Corp., B-274201, B-274202, Nov. 26, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 202, for the
   proposition that the cancellation was improper because it was merely a
   pretext to keep the incumbent, a large business, performing the services,
   or was the result of the agency's failure to engage in advance planning.
   We disagree with the protesters' application of these cases to this
   protest. Unlike those cases, the protesters here have not specifically
   challenged the sole source extension of the incumbent contract, but only
   the cancellation of this solicitation.