Department of the Army--Reconsideration

B-270860.5 Jul 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our prior decision contained legal or factual errors which would warrant a reversal or modification of our decision. After the protest was filed. The contracting officer determined that the firm's poor past performance justified a finding that it was nonresponsible. Since the firm is a small business concern. Our review of those documents showed that the evaluation was flawed. The day before the protester's comments were due. Holiday Inn-Laurel was determined to be the lowest-priced. SBA's decision on the COC was still pending. The Army did not dispute that its corrective action was taken in response to our queries bearing directly upon issues implicit in those allegations. View Decision Matter of: Department of the Army--Reconsideration File: B-270860.5 Date: July 18, 1996 Request for reconsideration is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our prior decision contained legal or factual errors which would warrant a reversal or modification of our decision. Attorneys DECISION The Department of the Army requests that we reconsider our decision in Holiday Inn-Laurel--Protest and Request for Costs, B-270860.3; B-270860.4, May 30, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 259, concerning the Army's procurement of meals, lodging, and transportation to support the Baltimore Military Entrance and Processing Station in Baltimore, Maryland under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC36-95-R-0012. In that decision, we granted Holiday Inn-Laurel's request that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the evaluation of its proposal, and sustained its protest of the Army's refusal to award it the contract in light of the fact that the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued the firm a certificate of competency (COC). We deny the request for reconsideration. Holiday Inn-Laurel filed a protest[1] in which it asserted that the Army had improperly evaluated its proposal as marginal and, more specifically, that the Army had improperly evaluated its proposal with respect to past performance. The firm also challenged the Army's past performance evaluation to the extent that it constituted a nonresponsibility determination. After the protest was filed, the contracting officer determined that the firm's poor past performance justified a finding that it was nonresponsible. Since the firm is a small business concern, the Army, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 19.602- 1(a)(2), referred the matter to SBA for review under its COC procedures. The Army also issued a stop-work order to the awardee. In its report, the Army summarily rebutted the protest allegations and referred to enclosed evaluation documents. Our review of those documents showed that the evaluation was flawed, and we asked the agency to respond to our concerns. The day before the protester's comments were due, the Army advised us that it had taken corrective action and reevaluated the proposals consistent with our concerns. As a result, Holiday Inn-Laurel was determined to be the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror, and thus in line for award. However, the Army did not make award to the firm because it had been determined nonresponsible, and SBA's decision on the COC was still pending. Under the circumstances, we dismissed the protests as academic with respect to the evaluation challenge, and as premature with respect to the nonresponsibility determination challenge. Holiday Inn-Laurel subsequently filed a request for costs with our Office, arguing that the Army had unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to the firm's meritorious protest. On that same day, SBA declined to issue the firm a COC, but then subsequently issued the COC. Holiday Inn-Laurel then protested the Army's refusal to acknowledge the SBA's issuance of the COC and award the contract to the firm. As to the request for costs, we determined that the Army had unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of Holiday Inn-Laurel's clearly meritorious protest, and recommended that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing that protest. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(e) (1996). The Army did not dispute that its corrective action was taken in response to our queries bearing directly upon issues implicit in those allegations, leading to our conclusion that they were clearly meritorious, and the record showed that the Army unduly delayed taking its corrective action by not promptly undertaking a reasonable factual investigation before filing its report. See Tucson Mobilephone, Inc.--Request for Entitlement, 73 Comp.Gen. 71 (1994), 94-1 CPD para.