L-3 Communications Corporation, Ocean Systems Division--Costs, B-281784.5, February 17, 2004

B-281784.5 Feb 17, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs is denied for failure to diligently pursue claim where protester failed to contact agency for nearly 3 years regarding resolution of previously filed claim and. The protester was directed to submit to the contracting agency. The Navy reported to L-3 that an audit of the claim revealed that the vast majority of the costs were unreasonable or unallowable. The protester contended that the counteroffer and cost calculations were unrealistic and unreasonable (particularly regarding the agency's reduction of the firm's claimed labor hours). 600 was considered unacceptable. We will attempt to bring this issue to quick closure.". View Decision L-3 Communications Corporation, Ocean Systems Division--Costs, B-281784.5, February 17, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION L-3 Communications Corporation, Ocean Systems Division, requests that we recommend the amount it should be reimbursed by the Department of the Navy for filing and pursuing its protest in L-3 Communications Corp., Ocean Sys. Div. B-28209;281784.3, B-281784.4, Apr. 26, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 81. We deny the request. This claim arises from L-3's protest of the agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection under request for proposals No. N00024-98-R-6207, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for the design and production of Omnibus Towed Array Systems. By decision of April 26, 1999, we sustained the protest in part, due to improprieties in the agency's cost realism evaluation of L-3's proposal. We recommended in that decision that the agency conduct discussions and request revised cost proposals. We also recommended that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees. The protester was directed to submit to the contracting agency, within 60 days of receiving our decision, its detailed claim of the time expended and costs incurred in pursuing its protest. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(f) (2003). L-3 submitted its claim to the agency on June 22, 1999, within the 60-day period; that claim sought a total of $374,322 in protest costs from the Navy. On or about November 2, 1999, the Navy reported to L-3 that an audit of the claim revealed that the vast majority of the costs were unreasonable or unallowable. In the interest of settling the matter promptly, the agency extended a counteroffer to the protester for $129,835 in protest costs. L-3 did not respond to the agency's offer. On February 24, 2000, the agency instructed L-3 to respond by March 3 by either accepting the agency's counteroffer, submitting its own counteroffer, or withdrawing its claim. On March 10, the agency received a rebuttal from L-3 to the agency's November 2 counteroffer; the protester contended that the counteroffer and cost calculations were unrealistic and unreasonable (particularly regarding the agency's reduction of the firm's claimed labor hours). L-3 acknowledged that the agency's counteroffer had been based on a government audit of L-3's claim, but did not request a copy of the audit report. In its letter, L-3 stated that it would accept $355,600 in settlement of its claim. On April 21, the Navy informed L-3 that its March 10 submission failed to provide additional support for its claim; the firm's counteroffer of $355,600 was considered unacceptable. The agency informed the protester that it did "not desire to provide [L-3] with another counteroffer at this time," and that "once [L-3] has provided [the agency] with a realistic settlement offer, we will attempt to bring this issue to quick closure." Contracting Officer's Letter, Apr. 21, 2000, at 2. On May 11, L-3 responded by submitting a new counteroffer to the agency in the amount of $254,323, again disputing the agency's initial--and unchanged--calculation of allowable labor hours. By letter of June 23, the agency notified the protester that its May 11 counteroffer was insufficiently supported; once again, the agency invited a revised claim from the protester. By letter of July 12, L-3 told the agency only that it "acknowledges receipt of the [agency's June 23] letter and will prepare and submit a response." L-3 Letter, July 12, 2000. The agency, however, did not hear from L-3 again regarding this claim for almost 3 years, until April 10, 2003. By letter of April 10, 2003, the protester told the contracting officer that it would accept the settlement offer made by the Navy on November 2, 1999, more than 3 years earlier. By letter of April 18, the agency refused payment on the claim due to L-3's failure to adequately document the full amount of its initial claim and the firm's failure to diligently pursue it. L-3 questioned the agency's position by letter of May 28; the agency affirmed its denial of the claim on June 20.