Matter of: Tucson Mobilephone, Inc.--Request for Declaration of Entitlement to Costs File: B-248155.2 Date: July 22, 1992
Highlights
PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Preparation costs Administrative remedies Protester is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest where agency corrective action. Was implemented approximately 2 weeks after the protest was filed. Tucson alleged that the RFP was restrictive and that its proposal had been rejected based on an improper evaluation. The Air Force canceled the RFP and advised our Office that it currently was considering how to fulfill its minimum needs. We will find such an entitlement only where. It is clear that the agency took this action promptly. It canceled the RFP 15 days after the protest was filed. Tucson is not entitled to recover its protest costs.
Matter of: Tucson Mobilephone, Inc.--Request for Declaration of Entitlement to Costs File: B-248155.2 Date: July 22, 1992
PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Preparation costs Administrative remedies Protester is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest where agency corrective action--cancellation of solicitation--was implemented approximately 2 weeks after the protest was filed.
Attorneys
DECISION
Tucson Mobilephone, Inc. requests that we declare it entitled to reimbursement of the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest under Department of the Air Force request for proposals (RFP) No. F08620- 92-R-0006. In its protest filed on March 31, 1992, Tucson alleged that the RFP was restrictive and that its proposal had been rejected based on an improper evaluation. On April 15, the Air Force canceled the RFP and advised our Office that it currently was considering how to fulfill its minimum needs. Based on this apparent corrective action, on April 30 we dismissed Tucson's protest as academic.
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.6(e) (1992), we may declare a protester entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees, where the agency takes corrective action in response to its protest. We will find such an entitlement only where, based on the circumstances of the case, we find that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. Building Servs. Unlimited--Request for Declaration of Entitlement to Costs, B-244135.2, Oct. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 312.
Even if cancellation of the RFP here constituted corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest, it is clear that the agency took this action promptly--it canceled the RFP 15 days after the protest was filed. Under these circumstances, Tucson is not entitled to recover its protest costs. See id.; Dynair Elecs., Inc.--Request for Declaration of Entitlement to Costs, B-244290.2, Sept. 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 260 (cancellation of RFP 4 weeks after filing of protest was prompt corrective action).
The request is denied.