Aztec Development Company--Claim for Costs

B-270275.2 Feb 13, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Amounts claimed for costs of filing and pursuing protest may be recovered to the extent that they are adequately documented and are shown to be reasonable. Reimbursement is not allowed for lost profits and for cost of filing reimbursement claim with the procuring agency. DECISION Aztec Development Company requests that our Office determine the amount it is entitled to recover from the Department of Transportation. We determine that Aztec is entitled to recover $11. The parties have been unable to resolve the matter. The amount claimed may be recovered to the extent that the claim is adequately documented and is shown to be reasonable. The purpose for which that expense was incurred. View Decision Matter of: Aztec Development Company--Claim for Costs File: B-270275.2 Date: February 13, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Aztec Development Company requests that our Office determine the amount it is entitled to recover from the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for the costs of filing and pursuing a bid protest that we sustained in our decision Aztec Dev. Co., B-270275, Feb. 21, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 108. Aztec has filed a claim for approximately $76,000; the Coast Guard recommends payment of $10,862 to the firm. We determine that Aztec is entitled to recover $11,311.73. On February 26, 1996, Aztec received our decision sustaining its protest of the agency's rejection of its bid (under invitation for bids No. DTCGG1-95-B-3WK331 for survey and dredging services) as materially unbalanced. Noting that performance of the contract had been completed, we recommended that the Coast Guard reimburse Aztec the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, and the firm's bid preparation costs; the decision notified Aztec that it should submit its detailed and certified claim for costs directly to the agency within 90 days after receipt of the decision. Aztec filed its claim with the Coast Guard on May 24, but the parties have been unable to resolve the matter. On July 29, Aztec filed this claim with our Office requesting that we determine the amount to be paid by the Coast Guard. A protester seeking to recover the costs of pursuing its protest must submit sufficient evidence to support its monetary claim. Custom Prod. Mfg., Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-235431.7, May 9, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 236. The amount claimed may be recovered to the extent that the claim is adequately documented and is shown to be reasonable. Patio Pools of Sierra Vista, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp.Gen. 383 (1989), 89-1 CPD Para. 374. At a minimum, claims for reimbursement of expenses must identify and support the amounts claimed for each individual expense (including cost data to support the calculation of claimed hourly rates for employees), the purpose for which that expense was incurred, and how the expense relates to the protest filed at the General Accounting Office. Maintenance and Repair--Claim for Costs, B-251223.4, June 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 381; Diverco, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-240639.5, May 21, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 460. Although the requirement for documentation may sometimes entail practical difficulties, the burden is on the protester to submit sufficient evidence to support its claim, and that burden is not met by inadequately supported statements that particular costs have been incurred. Hydro Research Science, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp.Gen. 506 (1989), 89-1 CPD Para. 572. Aztec first requests payment from the Coast Guard for $26,200 in lost profits that the firm contends it would have received had it been awarded the contract. We disallow this aspect of Aztec's claim since there is no legal basis for allowing recovery of lost profits. Firebird Constr. Corp.--Recon., B-246182.2, May 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD 473. [1] Aztec next claims $24,200.36 in costs for pursuing its protest and has submitted lists of claimed costs for activities performed and expenses incurred by the firm between August 1995 and April 1996. Aztec, however, did not file its protest with our Office until October 20, 1995, and we issued our decision sustaining the protest on February 21, 1996. Consequently, we disallow the costs claimed to have been incurred both prior to the filing of the protest (including the costs claimed for pursuit of Aztec's agency-level protest) and after the issuance of our protest decision, since they are not reasonably related to Aztec's pursuit of the protest to our Office. Techniarts Eng'g--Claim for Costs, 69 Comp. Gen. 679 (1990), 90-2 CPD Para.152; Komatsu Dresser Co.--Claim for Costs, B-246121.2, Aug. 23, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 112; Diverco, Inc.--Claim for Costs, supra. For costs incurred between the protester's filing and our decision, Aztec has submitted an itemization of its personnel's work hours, and applicable hourly rates, relating to the pursuit of its protest.