B-310927.2, Apr 21, 2008
Tremco Incorporated requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs it incurred in connection with filing and pursuing a protest challenging the selection of Alliance Roofing as the successful vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA-241-07-RQ-0179, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for roof replacement work at the Brockton, Massachusetts campus of the VA Boston Healthcare System.
We deny the request.
B-310927.2, Tremco Incorporated--Costs, April 21, 2008
Tremco Incorporated requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs it incurred in connection with filing and pursuing a protest challenging the selection of Alliance Roofing as the successful vendor under request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA-241-07-RQ-0179, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for roof replacement work at the
By letter of January 14, Tremco filed its current request for a recommendation for reimbursement of the firm's costs of filing and pursuing its protest. Tremco alleges that the agency's corrective action was unduly delayed and that it was taken in response to meritorious protest contentions.
Where a contracting agency takes action which renders a protest academic prior to our issuing a decision resolving the merits of the protest, our Office may recommend that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(e) (2007); Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs, B-294567.2,
In our view, the protester's request for reimbursement of protest costs is based on an argument that neither establishes the meritorious nature of its protest issues (which, in any event, are unrelated to the basis upon which the agency took corrective action) nor demonstrates that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. The protester instead essentially suggests that, since the agency had told it, during its agency-level protest, that a bond had been submitted by Alliance, but apparently had not noticed the untimely nature of the bond, the agency's subsequent rejection of the Alliance quotation based on the untimely bond after Tremco filed a protest with our Office constitutes unduly delayed corrective action. Tremco generally contends that if the impropriety regarding the bond had been discovered during the agency-level protest (even though Tremco did not raise any issue regarding the bond), and if the Alliance quotation had been rejected earlier because of the impropriety, Tremco would not have had to file its protest to our Office, and, as a result, it should be reimbursed for the costs of doing so.
We see no basis to recommend recovery of protest costs here, since Tremco's theory lacks the essential elements necessary to support a recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs. As an initial matter, there is no nexus between Tremco's protest contentions and the basis for corrective action; Tremco never raised the timeliness of the awardee's bond in its protest to our Office. Thus, Tremco has no basis for reimbursement on that issue. See Takota Corp.--Costs, B'299600.2,
The request for reimbursement of costs is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
 On the same date, Tremco also filed a protest of the agency's intended corrective action, contending that instead of resoliciting the requirement, the agency should select Tremco as the successful vendor to perform the work required under the RFQ. The agency filed a report on the merits of that protest responding to Tremco's protest contentions. Tremco failed to file comments on the report, as required, and its protest was dismissed.