Ervin & Associates, Inc.--Costs, B-278850.2, August 1, 1999

B-278850.2 Aug 01, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights General Accounting Office (GAO) recommends that protester be reimbursed costs of filing and pursuing protest only to the extent that such costs are sufficiently documented and are reasonable. Protest costs incurred in connection with agency-level protest are not recoverable. HUD specifically requested that Ervin specify which amount was attributable to salary and which amount was attributable to each element of overhead for each of the two listed individuals. Oleniacz was the principal writer of the protest and all follow up correspondence. . . . Oleniacz was responsible for all legal research and opinion that formed the basis for the protest. HUD's letter informed Ervin that "[o]verhead of 300 [percent] seems excessive and unreasonable and the general information [Ervin] provided regarding elements comprising the overhead is wholly inadequate.". View Decision Matter of: Ervin & Associates, Inc.--Costs File: B-278850.2 Date: August 1, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ervin & Associates, Inc. requests that we determine the amount it should recover from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-278850, Mar. 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 89. We recommend that Ervin be reimbursed $1,448.19 out of its total claim of $13,252.50. Background On February 17, 1995, HUD issued request for proposals No. DU100C000018424, calling for the award of multiple indefinite-quantity task order contracts to provide accounting support services. Ervin initially filed an agency-level protest alleging that a task order issued to one of the awardees improperly exceeded the contract's scope of work. After HUD denied that protest, Ervin filed essentially the same protest in our Office. We sustained the protest based on our conclusion that the task order improperly exceeded the contract's scope of work. We recommended that HUD terminate the task order and conduct a competitive acquisition to meet its needs for the services. We also recommended that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(d)(1) (1997). We advised Ervin to file its certified claim for such costs, "detailing the time expended and the costs incurred," directly with the agency. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., supra, at 9; see 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(f)(1). By letter dated April 14, 1998, Ervin submitted its claim for costs to the agency totaling $13,252.50. Ervin's letter contained two exhibits: a copy of our decision (exhibit No. 1), and a 1-page document entitled "ERVIN AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED SCHEDULE OF GAO PROTEST COSTS B-278850" (exhibit No. 2), which listed for two individuals (Mr. B. Oleniacz and Mr. J. Ervin) the number of hours each spent in various activities in pursuit of the protest in chronological order between December 10, 1997, and February 3, 1998, as well as hourly rates and extended totals (calculated by multiplying the number of hours spent by each individual by his corresponding hourly rate) for each individual for each activity. Exhibit No. 2 listed the various tasks (e.g., "Prepare GAO Protest," "Review GAO Protest," "Review HUD Request for Dismissal and discuss strategy."), and the number of hours spent on each activity. Exhibit No. 2 indicated that Mr. Ervin spent a total of 15.5 hours at a rate of $340 per hour and Mr. Oleniacz spent 51.5 hours at a rate of $155 per hour, for a total of 67 hours and $13,252.50. After reviewing Ervin's letter, HUD concluded that Ervin had provided insufficient details to determine the reasonableness of the claim. Accordingly, on April 28, HUD requested that Ervin submit additional documentation in support of its claim. Specifically, HUD requested that Ervin explain the role and responsibilities of the two named individuals (Mr. Oleniacz and Mr. Ervin) during preparation of the protest; a detailed description of the work performed and time sheets or other documentation that supported the actual time spent by the two individuals pursuing the protest between December 10, 1997 and February 3, 1998; documentation supporting the elements of cost (i.e., documentation showing that the claimed hourly rates reflect the actual rates of compensation for Mr. Oleniacz and Mr. Ervin, plus reasonable overhead); and an itemization of the elements that comprise the hourly rates, including a breakdown of the composition of the overhead. HUD specifically requested that Ervin specify which amount was attributable to salary and which amount was attributable to each element of overhead for each of the two listed individuals. Ervin responded to HUD's request in very general terms. For example, with respect to the request that the protester explain the specific roles and responsibilities of the two individuals, Ervin, in its letter dated May 18, 1998, stated as follows: Mr.