B-295882, Firetech Automatic Sprinkler, May 4, 2005
Decision
Matter of: Firetech Automatic Sprinkler
A.
W. Pharris for the protester.
Mary
E. Carney, Esq., and Spencer C. Bassett, Esq., Department of Justice, Federal
Prison Industries, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest of agency’s cancellation of solicitation after receipt of quotations is denied where record supports reasonableness of cancellation due to lack of available funding.
DECISION
Firetech Automatic Sprinkler protests the cancellation of request for
quotations (RFQ) No. VC0088-05, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal
Prison Industries (FPI), for the installation of a sprinkler system. Firetech contends that the agency lacked a
reasonable basis for the cancellation.
Firetech further challenges the agency’s stated intention to perform the
work in-house.
Three quotations were
received by the RFQ’s
Firetech protests the
cancellation of the RFQ. The firm contends
that the agency’s cost estimate for the work must have been flawed, resulting
in insufficient funding being committed for the work.[1]
A contracting agency need only establish a reasonable
basis to support a decision to cancel an RFQ; 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 quotations have been submitted and evaluated. Quality Tech., Inc., B-292883.2,
To the extent Firetech challenges the agency’s stated
intention to perform the sprinkler installation work in-house, the matter is
not appropriate for our review. Our
Office does not generally review agency decisions to perform in-house work
related to cancelled procurements, since such decisions are matters of
executive branch policy, which are not within our bid protest function. See, e.g., RAI, Inc.,
B-231889,
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
[1] The agency contends that our Office lacks
jurisdiction to review protests of FPI procurements, arguing that FPI is a
nonappropriated fund activity. Our
Office has recently held that, since FPI is defined by statute as a federal
agency, the agency is subject to our jurisdiction under the Competition in
Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3551-3556 (2000), amended by the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub.
L. No. 108-375, sect. 326, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004).
USA Fabrics, Inc., B-295737, B-295737.2,