[Protest Under Army IFB for Interior Painting]
B-220666.3: Apr 23, 1986
- Full Report:
A firm protested under an Army solicitation for interior painting and claimed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, contending that: (1) the solicitation requirements were defective because they were ambiguous; and (2) because the results of this protest and two prior protests had advanced the interests of the government and competitive procurement, it should not have had to bear the costs of the protests. Regulations state that entitlement to the costs of pursuing a protest, including attorney's fees, is expressly predicated on a GAO determination that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with a statute or regulation. GAO found that since: (1) the Army modified the solicitation requirements to correct the ambiguity, the protest was academic; and (2) the first two protests were voluntarily withdrawn and the present protest was academic, there was no basis for the claim. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed and the claim was denied.