B-226941.4, Jun 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD 562

B-226941.4, Jun 15, 1989, 89-1 CPD 562

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Preparation costs - Burden of proof DIGEST: Protester's request for reconsideration of decision as to amount of bid protest costs it was entitled to recover pursuant to an earlier decision sustaining its protest is denied where protester fails to show that quantum of costs awarded in prior decision resulted from an error of fact or law.

Ultraviolet Purification Systems, Inc.-- Claim for Bid Protest Costs- Reconsideration:

Ultraviolet Purification Systems, Inc., requests reconsideration of our decision in Ultraviolet Purification Systems, Inc.-- Claim for Bid Protest Costs, B-226941.3, Apr. 13, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 376, settling Ultraviolet's claim for its costs of pursuing its protest of sole source purchase order No. 05-1733, issued by the Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville, New York, which was sustained by our decision in Ultraviolet Purification Systems, Inc., B-226941, Sept. 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 229. We deny the request for reconsideration.

Ultraviolet claimed $16,190.12 as its costs of pursuing its protest. settled this claim because Ultraviolet and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to agree upon the amount of costs to which Ultraviolet was entitled to be reimbursed, inasmuch as Ultraviolet declined to supply requested documentation to substantiate its claim. We found that Ultraviolet was entitled to recover $5,177.99 in costs with two provisions:(1) that Ultraviolet substantiate to BOP the amount of its president's claimed salary and (2) that it show BOP that the president's bonus was paid in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation cost principles.

Ultraviolet first claims that we erroneously found that Ultraviolet failed to provide BOP with any documentation regarding its claim. Ultraviolet claims that the record shows that it advised BOP that all documentation supporting its claim was available at Ultraviolet's facility for review and inspection. Ultraviolet requests that we modify our decision taking into account the availability of supporting data.

As we indicated in our prior decision, a protester seeking to recover costs of pursuing a protest is required to submit sufficient evidence to support its monetary claim. See Introl Corp., 65 Comp.Gen. 429 (1986), 86-1 CPD Para. 279. Ultraviolet does not deny that it failed to furnish evidence requested by BOP to support its claim despite repeated requests. Its offer to make its documentation available for review at its facility does not satisfy its burden to reasonably support its claim. Therefore, Ultraviolet's disagreement with our characterization of its failure to cooperate with BOP in settling its claim does not provide a basis to reconsider our decision.

Next, Ultraviolet has provided our Office with an unsigned copy of its president's federal tax return with no attached statements of sources of income (e.g., W-2 forms), which it claims proves that the president's salary exceeded that claimed. Although this does not appear to be sufficient to substantiate the president's salary, we stated in our decision settling the claim that Ultraviolet should provide such supporting documentation to BOP-- not our Office.

Finally, Ultraviolet references a BOP purchase of a $21,000 bioassay of its competitor's product under a separate procurement action and states that the purchase was fraudulent. This matter has nothing to do with Ultraviolet's claim for costs. If Ultraviolet has evidence of fraud, it should bring the matter to the attention of the Department of Justice. See Canadian General Electric Co., Ltd., B-223934.2, July 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 29 at 6.

The request for reconsideration is denied.