TRESP Associates, Inc.--Costs, B-258322.8, November 3, 1998

B-258322.8 Nov 03, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Attorneys' fees need not be allocated between protest issue that was sustained and issues that were not addressed in decision where all issues were related to the same core allegation. Which was sustained. Since issues not addressed were not distinct and severable from the sustained issue. Attorneys' fees related to those issues are reimbursable. 2. Costs of pursuing claim at General Accounting Office are not reimbursable where record shows that agency proceeded expeditiously and reasonably in responding to claim. 4. Out-of-pocket expenses are reimbursable (except for meal expense) in full. That the evaluation therefore was unreasonable. DOE argues that TRESP is entitled to reimbursement only for the time spent by the firm's attorneys on the single contention sustained in the protest. View Decision Matter of: TRESP Associates, Inc.--Costs File: B-258322.8 Date: November 3, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION TRESP Associates, Inc. requests reimbursement in the amount of $58,346.83, as its costs of filing and pursuing its protest, which we sustained in our decision, TRESP Assocs., Inc.; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-258322.5, B-258322.6, Mar. 9, 1995, 96-1 CPD Para. 8. We recommend that TRESP be reimbursed $39,755.26. We sustained TRESP's protest challenging the Department of Energy's (DOE) award of a contract to Chew & Associates, Inc. (CAI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP03-93SF19686, for technical and management services, on the basis that the agency had failed to recognize that TRESP had addressed and eliminated in its best and final offer (BAFO) many of the weaknesses identified by DOE during discussions, and that the evaluation therefore was unreasonable. However, we denied TRESP's protest that DOE's award to CAI gave rise to an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and we did not address several other protest grounds related to the evaluation (since we already had sustained the protest on the first ground). We recommended corrective action and reimbursement of TRESP's protest costs. TRESP has been unable to reach agreement with DOE on the claim, and asks that we recommend the amount of protest costs which should be reimbursed by DOE. PRE-DECISION ATTORNEYS' FEES TRESP claims reimbursement for $34,801.08 (236.19 hours) in attorneys' fees incurred prior to issuance of our decision and with respect to issues other than the conflict of interest issue. TRESP Letter of June 27, 1996 at 2; TRESP Letter of May 29, 1995 at 10 and Exhibits 2-7. TRESP argues that its reimbursement should include fees related to the evaluation issues not addressed in our decision, since they arose out of the same common core of facts and law as the sustained issue--the flawed evaluation process. DOE argues that TRESP is entitled to reimbursement only for the time spent by the firm's attorneys on the single contention sustained in the protest--that the evaluation was unreasonable as DOE failed to recognize that TRESP had addressed and eliminated in its BAFO many of the weaknesses identified by the agency during discussions. /1/ Based on DOE's review of the billing records submitted by TRESP's counsel, DOE determined that only 24 percent of the hours claimed was spent on the sustained issue. DOE Report of March 7, 1996 at 10. As a general rule, we consider a successful protester should be reimbursed the costs incurred with respect to all issues pursued, not merely those upon which it prevails. Price Waterhouse--Claim for Costs, B-254492.3, July 20, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 38 at 3. In our view, limiting recovery of protest costs in all cases to only those issues on which the protester prevailed would be inconsistent with the broad, remedial congressional purpose behind the cost reimbursement provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3554(c)(1)(A) (1994). On the other hand, we have limited the award of protest costs to successful protesters where a part of their costs is allocable to a protest issue which is so clearly severable as to essentially constitute a separate protest. Interface Flooring Sys. Inc.--Claim for Attorneys' Fees, B-225439.5, July 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 106 at 2-3. In this case, TRESP raised several significant issues concerning the conduct of discussions, evaluation of proposals, and resulting source selection decision. The protester established that the source selection was unreasonable because DOE failed to recognize that TRESP had addressed and eliminated in its BAFO many of the weaknesses identified by the agency during discussions.