J.F. Taylor, Inc.--Entitlement to Costs

B-266039.3 Jul 05, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protests where the agency decides to take corrective action in response to the protests. Were not clearly meritorious. The proposals were evaluated. Discussions were held. Best and final offers were requested from HTI and Taylor. Were determined technically acceptable. Arguing that HTI's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable. HTI could not have demonstrated a visual system compliant with the RFP's specifications regarding the visual system's "update rate" and "infrared" capability. [1] After requesting summary dismissal of the protest on procedural grounds and having its request denied. View Decision Matter of: J.F. Taylor, Inc.--Entitlement to Costs File: B-266039.3 Date: July 5, 1996 Protester is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protests where the agency decides to take corrective action in response to the protests, and the protests, which concerned the proper interpretation of the solicitation's requirements and the awardee's compliance with the requirements, were not clearly meritorious. Attorneys DECISION J.F. Taylor, Inc. requests that we declare it entitled to reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing its protests against the award of a contract to Hughes Training, Inc. (HTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61339-95-R-0008, issued by the Naval Air Systems Command, Department of the Navy, for the modification of two weapons systems trainers used to train personnel in the operation of the AH-1W SuperCobra helicopter. We deny the request. The RFP, issued on November 23, 1994, provided for the award of a firm, fixed-price contract to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The solicitation provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and among other things, informed offerors that during technical discussions they would be required to demonstrate the "major components" of their proposed visual system for the weapons systems trainers. The agency received seven proposals from five offerors, ranging in price from $7,234,138 to $13,502,147. The proposals were evaluated, discussions were held, and best and final offers were requested from HTI and Taylor. The proposals of HTI and Taylor, priced at $8,700,017 and $11,352,190 respectively, were determined technically acceptable, and on August 30, 1995, the agency awarded the contract to HTI. On September 8, Taylor protested the award to our Office, arguing that HTI's proposal should have been rejected as technically unacceptable. Taylor argued that based upon its knowledge of the industry, HTI could not have demonstrated a visual system compliant with the RFP's specifications regarding the visual system's "update rate" and "infrared" capability. [1] After requesting summary dismissal of the protest on procedural grounds and having its request denied, the agency submitted its report in response to the protest on October 17. The agency argued in response to the protest that the protester had misinterpreted the requirements of the RFP and that HTI's proposal was in fact compliant with the RFP's specifications. The protester timely commented on the agency report, and on October 30 filed a supplemental protest with our Office in which it raised more specific arguments concerning HTI's proposed approach to meeting the RFP's requirements regarding the visual system's update rate and infrared capability, and HTI's ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirements. Taylor also requested a hearing pursuant to 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.5 (1995), to address what the protester characterized as "inconsistencies" in the record. Based on a telephone conference held November 11, the agency was to submit its report in response to the supplemental protest by November 20, and the protester to submit its comments on the agency report by November 27. The parties were informed during this telephone conference that our Office anticipated holding a hearing in early December, during which the issues raised by the protester in its initial and supplemental protests would be addressed. On November 17, the agency submitted a request that Taylor's protests be dismissed because in the agency's view, they were predicated on Taylor's misunderstanding of the RFP's requirements.