United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Trade Links General Trading and Contracting, WLL 

File: B-405182 

Date: September 1, 2011 

Jason Mohiuddin, Trade Links General Trading and Contracting, WLL, for the 

protester. 

Amanda M. Willis, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. 

Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency properly cancelled solicitation where the agency could not determine that 

any of the offerors’ proposed prices, which significantly exceeded the government 

estimate, were fair and reasonable. 

DECISION 

Trade Links General Trading and Contracting, WLL of Meshrif, Kuwait, protests the 

decision of the Department of the Air Force to cancel request for proposals (RFP) 

No. FA5703-11-R-0027 for mail porter services at Kuwait City International Airport. 

Trade Links contends that the cancellation was unreasonable.1

We deny the protest. 

The Air Force issued RFP No. FA5703-11-R-0027 on May 4, 2011, seeking mail porter 

services at Kuwait City International Airport. As relevant here, the RFP stated that 

 

1

 The protester proceeded with its protest pro se and therefore did not have an 

attorney who could obtain access to nonpublic information pursuant to the terms of 

a protective order. Accordingly, our discussion of the facts of this protest is 

necessarily general in nature to avoid reference to nonpublic information. Our 

conclusions, however, are based on our review of the entire record, including 

nonpublic information. 
offerors’ prices must be reasonable in comparison to estimates and prior prices paid. 

The RFP also stated that offerors’ proposals would be reviewed to determine if the 

proposed prices were reasonable, and that to be eligible for award, an offeror’s price 

must be determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) § 13.106-3. RFP at 7. 

The agency received six proposals by the proposal due date and determined that 

three of them were technically acceptable. Of the technically acceptable proposals, 

the lowest priced one was significantly higher than the government estimate. 

After comparing the proposals to the government estimate and the prior contract 

price, the contracting officer determined that each of the proposals was 

unreasonable as to price. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. The contracting 

officer also viewed the offerors’ high prices as an indication that none of the three 

technically acceptable offerors had a clear understanding of the requirement. Id. On 

June 7, the agency initially extended the proposal due date to allow for the 

submission of additional proposals, but subsequently decided to cancel the 

solicitation altogether to allow the agency more time to reevaluate the requirement 

and revise the solicitation. Id. This protest followed. 

The protester contends that the agency’s decision to cancel the RFP was 

unreasonable. The protester also argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to 

compare the offerors’ prices to the government estimate or the prior contract price 

because the agency did not offer a site visit and did not set forth facilities 

requirements in the RFP. Comments at 1. Therefore, the protester claims, offerors 

were lead to believe that only one facility, owned by National Aviation Services 

(NAS) could be used. Id. 

A procuring agency has broad authority to cancel a solicitation issued under 

negotiated procedures and need only establish a reasonable basis for cancellation. 

Bahan Dennis, Inc., B-249496.3, Mar. 3, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 184 at 3. If an agency 

cannot purchase at a “fair and reasonable” price, as required by the FAR, then 

cancellation is warranted. Id.; see FAR §15.402 (price must be “fair and 

reasonable”). A determination of price reasonableness is a matter of agency 

discretion, involving the exercise of business judgment, which our Office will not 

question unless it is shown to be unreasonable. Selecta Corp., B-252182, May 26, 

1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 421 at 2; Sletager, Inc., B-240789.6, Oct. 11, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 328 

at 2. In determining price reasonableness, an agency may consider a number of 

factors, including prior contract history and the government estimate. Vitronics, 

Inc., B-237249, Jan. 16, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 57 at 2; see FAR §15.404-1(b). In this regard, 

we have found cancellations proper where the protester’s price exceeded the 

government estimate by as little as 7.2 percent. Nutech Laundry & Textiles, Inc., 

B-291739, Feb. 10, 2003, 2003 CPD¶ 34 at 4 (citing Building Maint. Specialists, Inc., 

B-186441, Sept. 10, 1976, 76-2 CPD ¶ 233 at 4). 

Page 2 B-405182 
Page 3 B-405182 

Based upon our review of the record, there is no basis to find unreasonable the Air 

Force’s determination that none of the prices were fair and reasonable. As noted 

above, the agency compared the offerors’ prices to the government estimate and the 

prior contract price. Given that the lowest proposed price exceeded the government 

estimate by a significant amount, we think the agency could reasonably conclude 

that the offered prices were not reasonable and that the offerors did not clearly 

understand the requirements of the RFP. 

Finally, with regard to the protester’s claim that the RFP misled offerors because it 

caused them to believe that the NAS warehouse was the only acceptable facility, we 

find that the RFP was clear as to the facility requirements. In the RFP’s questions 

and answers, a potential offeror asked whether the NAS warehouse would continue 

to be used. The agency responded that “[t]he new contractor will be responsible for 

obtaining their own warehouse/office space located in the secure side of Kuwait City 

International Airport.” Protester’s Comments, Attach. 5, Additional Mail Porter 

Questions and Answers, at 1, 2-3. Therefore, we find no merit to the protester’s 

claim that the RFP misled offerors into proposing higher prices based on the 

assumption that the NAS facility was required to be used. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel