The protester challenged the agency’s decision to cancel the RFP. The agency argued that the offerors’ submitted prices were no longer accurate due to the passage of time. GAO found the pricing concern was reasonable and denied the protest.
Hatalom Corporation, GAO B-421803.5
- Cancellation of Solicitation– The protester challenged the agency’s decision to cancel its RFP for medical instructor operator support. The agency took this action as a corrective action in response to a separate protest. The protester claimed the agency did not have a reasonable basis to cancel the solicitation.
- Basis for Cancellation – The agency provided multiple reasons for the cancellation. GAO noted it only needed to find one legitimate reason to justify cancellation. GAO found the agency’s concern regarding the period of performance justified cancellation. Due to multiple protests in GAO and SBA, the period of performance was significantly shortened. This created a legitimate concern that the prices submitted by the offerors were no longer accurate.
- Phase-in Period – The protester argued the shortened period of performance was a “regular occurrence in government contracts” that did not warrant cancellation. Additionally, the performance period already was updated as it had a phase-in period. GAO noted the contract was ambiguous as to the phase-in period and the protester attempted to unilaterally modify the award contract by extending the phase-in start.
- Pricing Concern – Even if the agency accepted the protester’s unilateral modification attempts, the pricing concern remained reasonable. The protester itself had written a letter to the agency stating it should have been permitted to update its proposal to account for the passage of time. Thus, because both parties believed the originally submitted prices were inaccurate, GAO found the agency’s cancellation reasonable and denied the protest.
The protester was represented by David S. Black and Gregory R. Hallmark of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency was represented by Jonathan A. Hardage and Branden M. Smith of the Army. Michael P. Grogan and Evan D. Wesser of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
