Holiday Inn-Laurel--Entitlement to Costs

B-265646.4 Nov 20, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest when the agency took corrective action after comments were filed where the comments raised new allegations. The corrective action was clearly linked to these new allegations and not to the initial protest allegation. Which was not clearly meritorious. The corrective action was taken 5 working days after the comments were filed. The Army submitted its report to our Office in which it asserted that Holiday Inn's "blanket assurances" were not sufficient to show compliance with the RFP's requirements. The agency stated that its actions were proper. Stated that Holiday Inn's proposal was found technically unacceptable for two previously undisclosed reasons: the firm had very little past experience and had not submitted past performance evaluations. View Decision Matter of: Holiday Inn-Laurel--Entitlement to Costs File: B-265646.4 Date: November 20, 1995 Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest when the agency took corrective action after comments were filed where the comments raised new allegations; the corrective action was clearly linked to these new allegations and not to the initial protest allegation, which was not clearly meritorious; and the corrective action was taken 5 working days after the comments were filed. Attorneys DECISION Holiday Inn-Laurel requests that we declare it entitled to reimbursement of its costs of filing and pursuing a protest challenging the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC36-95-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army for the provision of meals, lodging, and transportation to support the Baltimore Military Entrance and Processing Station in Baltimore, Maryland. Holiday Inn contends that the Army unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its protest. We deny the request. The RFP, issued on May 26, 1995, set forth various technical factors and price as evaluation criteria and advised that award would be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. The Army evaluated the offers it received, conducted discussions, reevaluated the offers, and excluded Holiday Inn's proposal from the competitive range as technically unacceptable. On August 17, Holiday Inn filed a protest with our Office challenging the Army's action and specifically argued that the Army improperly concluded that its proposal did not comply with the RFP's overflow housing requirements. [1] Holiday Inn pointed out that its proposal stated that it would comply with these requirements. On September 22, the Army submitted its report to our Office in which it asserted that Holiday Inn's "blanket assurances" were not sufficient to show compliance with the RFP's requirements. The agency stated that its actions were proper, and provided evaluation documents to support its position. Three days later, in response to the protester's request for additional documents, the Army provided its competitive range determination. That document listed the point spread demarcating the Army's competitive range, and stated that Holiday Inn's proposal was found technically unacceptable for two previously undisclosed reasons: the firm had very little past experience and had not submitted past performance evaluations, and its training plans for employee orientation and customer service were unacceptable. On September 29, Holiday Inn filed its comments on the agency report. In addition to addressing the Army's response concerning its overflow housing procedures, Holiday Inn raised several new issues derived from the agency report. Specifically, Holiday Inn argued that the Army improperly failed to consider price in its competitive range determination and used a predetermined cutoff score; improperly failed to reevaluate its proposal under the site visit factor; improperly determined that it, the incumbent contractor, had little past experience; improperly required it to submit past performance evaluations when the Army possessed such evaluations; and improperly evaluated its orientation plan. On October 3, our Office asked the Army to respond to Holiday Inn's allegations concerning the site visit and past performance evaluations. On October 6, in lieu of filing a response to our request, the Army advised our Office that it was taking corrective action by reopening discussions and including the protester's proposal in the competitive range. In light of the corrective action, we dismissed the protest as academic on October 11. Holiday Inn now requests that we find it entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. Where an agency takes corrective action prior to our issuing a decision on the merits, we may declare the protester entitled to recover the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 4 C.F.R. Sec.