Claim for Bid Preparation Costs

The Department of the Army issued a request for technical proposals (RFTP) for the preparation of a "military option evaluation study of civilian males," which was the first step of a two-step formally advertised procurement. The RFTP was modified several times prior to the issue of the second-step invitation for bids (IFB). Robinson Associates, Inc., whose technical proposal was acceptable, was the low bidder under the second step, but its bid was rejected as nonresponsive because it was not based on the acceptable technical proposal. The award was made to Chilton Company/Chilton Research Services, the second low bidder. Robinson protested to GAO the award to Chilton as a violation of a small business set-aside, claiming its own bid was responsive, and accusing the Army of amending the RFTP by incorporating technical innovations proposed by Robinson in informal discussions with the Army. Soon after filing a protest with GAO, Robinson filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the same issues. Since the material issues were then before a court of competent jurisdiction, GAO refused to consider the protest. The District Court denied Robinson's request and the protester turned again to GAO, requesting reimbursement of the costs incurred in preparing its technical proposal, based on the claim that the Army's actions were unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, Since the District Court found no fault with the Army's procurement procedures in its resolution of the case, there was no basis for GAO to sustain Robinson's characterization of the Army's conduct and the protest was denied.