_____________________________________________ DENIED: October 30, 1992 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 12038-P VALIX FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP I, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, Joseph Goldstein, and David Beale, Office of General Counsel (Procurement), Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, Acting Chief Judge, DEVINE, and PARKER. PARKER, Board Judge. In this protest, filed on September 22, 1992, Valix Federal Partnership I protests the cancellation by the Department of the Air Force of a solicitation for various items of automatic data processing equipment (ADPE). The parties have elected to have the protest decided on the written record pursuant to Rule 11. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest. Findings of Fact On May 15, 1992, the Air Force's Minicomputer Multi-User System (AMMUS) contract, an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract for various types of ADPE, was suspended because the Air Force had reached the maximum dollar limitation of the contract. Protest File, Exhibit 1. Because of the suspension of the AMMUS contract, the Air Force decided to purchase several needed items of equipment from Wang Corporation's GSA non-mandatory schedule contract, and placed a notice of its intent to do so in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). Protest File, Exhibit 2. After considering the seven responses received to the CBD notice, the Air Force decided to issue a solicitation for a competitive procurement of the ADPE. Id., Exhibit 1. Offers were due on September 21. Id. On September 14, the contracting officer received notice that the AMMUS contract had been reinstated effective September 4. Protest File, Exhibits 1, 4B. The contracting officer then canceled the solicitation by amendment effective September 14, prior to the date offers were due. Id., Exhibits 1, 5. According to the contracting officer, the solicitation was canceled "so that the Government would realize the cost savings available by ordering against the AMMUS requirements . . . contract, and to reduce administrative burden on Operational Contracting." Id., Exhibit 1. Protester alleges that it did not receive the notice of the cancellation until September 21, a week after the cancellation. Protest Complaint. By that time, however, protester had already submitted an offer, on September 18. Protest File, Exhibit 9. Protester's price for the required items appears to be a little bit less than the AMMUS price. Id., Exhibits 9, 10. Discussion Protester cites two sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) which it alleges were violated by the Air Force. We discuss each in turn. Section 15.402(c) of the FAR provides as follows: Except for solicitations for information or planning purposes . . . contracting officers shall solicit proposals or quotations only when there is a definite intention to award a contract . . . . 48 CFR 15.402(c) (1992). The record contains no basis for finding a violation of this section. This is no evidence whatsoever that, at the time the solicitation was issued, the Air Force lacked a definite intention to award a contract. Certainly, the contracting officer would have liked to have ordered the items of ADPE from the AMMUS contract in the first place. But at the time the solicitation was issued, the AMMUS contract was suspended. The fact that the contracting officer later canceled the solicitation when she learned that the AMMUS contract had been reinstated does not show that she lacked an intention to award a contract when she issued the protested solicitation. Protester next cites FAR 15.608(b), which provides: All proposals received in response to a solicitation may be rejected if the agency head determines in writing that -- . . . . (4) For other reasons, cancellation is clearly in the Government's interest[.] Protester makes two arguments in connection with this provision. First, protester maintains that the Air Force violated the section because the agency head made no determination in writing with respect to the cancellation. We hold that no written determination by the agency head was required. By its very terms, the section applies to situations in which the decision to cancel a solicitation is made after receipt of proposals, which then must be rejected as a consequence of the cancellation. A very different situation existed here. The contracting officer canceled the solicitation before offers were due and before any offers had been received. She did not reject any valid proposals because, by the time protester submitted its proposal, there no longer was a solicitation pursuant to which proposals could be made. Protester's second argument with respect to the requirements of this section is really the crux of its protest. Protester maintains that cancellation of the solicitation was improper because the contracting officer did not reasonably determine that cancellation was "clearly in the Government's interest." We disagree. All protests involving cancellation of a solicitation apply essentially the same rule: the determination whether a cogent reason exists for cancellation is primarily within the discretion of the contracting agency and therefore will not be disturbed absent clear proof of abuse of discretion. Cf. Valix Federal Partnership I v. National Archives and Records Administration, GSBCA 11932-P (Sep. 23, 1992); MICA, Inc., B-200735, 81-1 CPD 513 (June 22, 1981). Although a great majority of these cases involve sealed bid procurements, the same analysis applies to negotiated procurements, such as the one at issue here. In Computer Sciences Corp., GSBCA 10009-P, 89-3 BCA 21,986, 1989 BPD 171, the Department of Justice (DOJ) canceled a six month old solicitation for telecommunications services prior to the time for receipt of proposals. The solicitation was canceled because DOJ decided to obtain the services under the Government's comprehensive FTS2000 contract. In analyzing the propriety of the cancellation, the Board stated: From these authorities [including FAR 15.608(b)(4)] we conclude that the government has an obligation to reassess both its needs and circumstances of the marketplace as a procurement progresses to award to ensure that it is procuring goods and services in its best interest. While we can understand the frustration of vendors who have expended resources to respond to an RFP [request for proposals] only to have that RFP canceled, we do not under the circumstances here find any violation of statute or regulation, including the mandate in FAR 1.602 that contractors receive fair and equitable treatment. Nor have [protesters] shown that DOJ's actions in issuing and then canceling the RFP were a manipulation of the competitive process or arbitrary and capricious . . . . 89-3 BCA at 110,583, 1989 BPD 171, at 16-17. We find no abuse of discretion here. Prior to receiving any proposals, the contracting officer canceled the solicitation because, in her judgment, there would be both a cost and an administrative savings by ordering the needed items from the reinstated AMMUS contract. There is no evidence of an attempt to manipulate the competitive process or that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The fact that a proposal received after the cancellation offered slightly lower prices for the items does not change the reasonableness of that decision. Decision The protest is DENIED. The suspension of respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its terms. _______________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Acting Chief Board Judge _____________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge