Glen/Mar Construction, Inc.
B-298355: Aug 3, 2006
- Full Report:
Glen/Mar Construction, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 260-06-01648, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide construction services at the VA Medical Center in Portland, Oregon. Glen/Mar contends that the agency lacked a reasonable basis for the cancellation and also challenges the agency's stated intention to consider issuing the resolicited project on an unrestricted basis.
We deny the protest.
B-298355, Glen/Mar Construction, Inc., August 3, 2006
Glen/Mar Construction, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. 260-06-01648, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide construction services at the VA Medical Center in
Two proposals, including Glen/Mar's, were received by the solicitation's May 11 extended closing date. The contracting officer reviewed the proposals and concluded that each proposal significantly exceeded the available funding for this project even if the deductive alternate line items were exercised. After confirming that no additional funds were available to support an award selection, the contracting officer canceled the solicitation. This protest followed.
Glen/Mar argues that the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation lacks a reasonable basis. The protester questions the timing of the agency's decision to cancel, alleging that the contracting officer should have attempted negotiations which would have confirmed the Contracting Officer['s] speculation and would have provided merit to his immediate cancellation of this solicitation. Protester's Comments at 2.
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. Quality Support, Inc., B-296716,
Although Glen/Mar contends that negotiations would have and could have resolved any budget constraints, Protest at 3, the protester's belief that negotiations might have resulted in reducing the offerors' proposed pricing does not render unreasonable the contracting officer's decision to cancel the solicitation. In any event, there was a significant difference between the pricing proposed and the available funding, which made it unlikely that negotiations, without a significant reduction in the scope of the contract requirements, would have proved successful.
In the absence of a showing of bad faith on an agency's part in connection with a funding decision (which is neither alleged nor otherwise evident here), there is no basis to require an agency to go forward with a procurement given that there is insufficient funding for the project. James M. Carroll--Recon., supra. Procurement officials are presumed to act in good faith and in order for our Office to conclude otherwise, the record must show that procuring officials intended to injure the protester. Cycad Corp., B-255870,
Finally, regarding the protester's objection to the agency's stated intention to consider resoliciting the project on an unrestricted basis, rather than as an SDVOSB set-aside, the matter is premature at this time. Our Office considers protests against specific procurement actions and not allegations of anticipated future improprieties. See Ystueta, Inc., B-296628.4,
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger