Burns and Roe Services Corporation--Costs
B-310828.2: Apr 28, 2008
- Full Report:
Burns and Roe Services Corporation (BRSC) requests that we recommend reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to CH2M Hill Constructors, under Department of the Interior request for proposals (RFP) No.06SP340020, for support services for the Yuma Desalting Plant.
We recommend that the agency reimburse BRSC the costs of filing and pursuing its protest.
B-310828.2, Burns and Roe Services Corporation--Costs, April 28, 2008
In recommending reimbursement of protest costs, GAO will not sever successful issues from unsuccessful issues--but rather recommends reimbursement for all issues raised--where issues are interconnected and based on common factual underpinnings.
In its protest, filed on
On February 20, BRSC timely requested, pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(e) (2007). Interior acknowledges that BRSC is entitled to recover its protest costs. The agency requests, however, that recovery be limited to only those reasonable costs relating to the protest issue about which the GAO attorney expressed concern during the ADR, that is, the agency's alleged failure to conduct meaningful discussions.
As a general rule, we consider a successful protester entitled to be reimbursed costs incurred with respect to all issues pursued, not merely those upon which it prevails.
We previously have found that the three issue areas raised by BRSC in its protest--misevaluation of proposals, failure to hold meaningful discussions, and treating offerors unequally--involve the same core facts, and thus are intertwined for purposes of considering whether protest costs should be reimbursed. BAE Tech. Servs. Inc.--Costs, B-296699.3
The request for protest costs is granted.
Gary L. Kepplinger
 In outcome prediction ADR, the cognizant GAO attorney convenes the parties, at their request or at GAO's initiative, and explains what he or she believes the likely outcome will be and the reasons for that belief. A GAO attorney will engage in this form of ADR only if there is a high degree of confidence regarding the outcome. Where the party predicted to lose the protest takes action obviating the need for a written decision (either the agency taking corrective action or the protester withdrawing the protest), our Office closes the case. Although the outcome prediction reflects the view of the GAO attorney and, generally, that of a supervisor as well, it is not a decision of our Office, and it does not bind our Office should issuance of a written decision remain appropriate. See T Square Logistics Servs. Corp., B-297790.4,
Protest costs generally are awarded where an agency fails to take prompt corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest. See Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.--Recon. and Costs, B-275587.5, B-275587.6,