B-247915.2, May 12, 1992
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Preparation costs - Administrative remedies DIGEST: Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest where the agency canceled the solicitation approximately 3 weeks after it was protested with the General Accounting Office. It is not clear why the RFP cancellation should be viewed as corrective action responsive to the protest. Even if we accept the protester's contention that it is. We find no undue delay that will warrant entitlement to costs. This response is precisely the kind of prompt reaction that our Regulations are designed to encourage. Alpha Q's request for entitlement to a declaration of costs is denied.
B-247915.2, May 12, 1992
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Preparation costs - Administrative remedies DIGEST: Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest where the agency canceled the solicitation approximately 3 weeks after it was protested with the General Accounting Office.
Attorneys
Alpha Q, Inc.-- Claim for Costs:
Alpha Q, Inc. requests that our Office declare it entitled to recover the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of request for proposals (RFP) No. F41608-91-R-56474, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for 145 each J85 Gas Turbine Engine Mainframes.
On March 12, 1992, Alpha Q protested to our Office its disapproval as an approved source. According to the protester, on March 31, 1992, it received an amendment from the Air Force canceling the solicitation. received notice of the cancellation on April 6, 1992, and dismissed the protest as academic on April 7, 1992.
On April 6, 1992, Alpha Q filed a claim with our Office under section 21.6(e) of our revised Bid Protest Regulations for the costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.6(e) (1992). Under the revised Regulations, we may declare the protester entitled to recover the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees, if the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest. See Oklahoma Indian Corp.-- Claim for Costs, 70 Comp.Gen. 558 (1991), 91-1 CPD Para. 558. In adopting the revised Regulations, we did not intend to award protest costs in every case where the agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, but only where the circumstances of the case reflected that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious protest. See Iowa-Illinois Cleaning Co.-- Claim for Costs, B-245545.2, Nov. 12, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 451.
It is not clear why the RFP cancellation should be viewed as corrective action responsive to the protest. Even if we accept the protester's contention that it is, however, we find no undue delay that will warrant entitlement to costs. The Air Force notified Alpha Q of the solicitation's cancellation less than 3 weeks after it had filed its bid protest; notice of the cancellation arrived at our Office shortly thereafter. This response is precisely the kind of prompt reaction that our Regulations are designed to encourage. See R.J. Sanders, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-245388.2, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. ***; Leslie Controls, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-243979.2, July 12, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 50.
Accordingly, Alpha Q's request for entitlement to a declaration of costs is denied.