Parmatic Filter Corporation--Costs, B-285288.5, August 27, 2001

B-285288.5 Aug 27, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST General Accounting Office (GAO) will not recommend the protester's recovery of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in excess of the amount that the procuring agency found reasonable. We also recommended "that the agency reimburse the protester its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest bases that were sustained. Documentation supporting the claim was also provided. Showed that Parmatic was requesting reimbursement for all of its protest costs including those associated with issues that we denied. Parmatic refused to segregate its claimed costs between those incurred for the issues which were sustained and those incurred pursuing the issues that were denied. Stating to the Army that the issues were not severable. View Decision Parmatic Filter Corporation--Costs, B-285288.5, August 27, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Parmatic Filter Corporation requests that our Office recommend the amount it should recover from the Department of the Army for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288, B-285288.2, Aug. 14, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 185. In our August 2000 decision, we sustained in part and denied in part Parmatic's challenge to the Army's award to Hunter Manufacturing, Inc. for filters and filter canisters. Specifically, we found that the agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated the two firms' proposals under the solicitation's quality factor and sustained Parmatic's protest on this basis. We specifically denied, however, the majority of Parmatic's protest grounds, including Parmatic's objections to the agency's evaluations under the technical, small business participation, and past performance evaluation factors. We recommended that the agency reevaluate proposals, conduct discussions if appropriate, and make a new source selection decision. We also recommended "that the agency reimburse the protester its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest bases that were sustained, including attorneys' fees." Parmatic Filter Corp., supra, at 19-20. On October 12, 2000, Parmatic submitted a claim for $103,331.10 to the Army for its protest costs, which consisted of attorneys' fees of Parmatic's outside counsel, costs incurred by in-house personnel, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by outside counsel and in-house personnel. Documentation supporting the claim was also provided. This documentation, however, showed that Parmatic was requesting reimbursement for all of its protest costs including those associated with issues that we denied, notwithstanding our recommendation in the protest decision. The Army requested that Parmatic identify, in accordance with our protest decision, the costs incurred pursuing the protest issues that we sustained. Parmatic refused to segregate its claimed costs between those incurred for the issues which were sustained and those incurred pursuing the issues that were denied, stating to the Army that the issues were not severable. On March 23, 2001, in the face of Parmatic's refusal to provide the requested breakdown, the Army decided that Parmatic was entitled to be reimbursed $28,739.82 for its protest costs. This reflected the agency's judgment as to amount of time and expenses Parmatic's counsel and personnel should have reasonably incurred pursuing the protest issues that were sustained. /1/ Parmatic requested that our Office recommend the amount of protest costs that the firm should recover, asking that we find it entitled to $103,331.10, the entire amount of costs and expenses the firm states it incurred pursuing all of the protest grounds. After obtaining a response from the Army, we conducted an alternative dispute resolution conference in an effort to settle this claim. During this conference, we confirmed that, as stated in our protest decision, Parmatic's cost reimbursement should be limited to those costs incurred pursuing the sustained protest issues. We informed the protester that the record before our Office did not sufficiently establish the costs related to the successful protest issues. The parties stated that they would reopen negotiations concerning Parmatic's cost entitlement, and Parmatic agreed to provide further information identifying the costs and expenses it asserted were incurred pursuing the protest issues on which we sustained its protest. On May 29, Parmatic submitted to the agency "a proposal for settling the referenced cost claim based on a segregation of costs associated with [the firm's] successful and unsuccessful grounds of protest." Letter from Parmatic to Army (May 29, 2001) at 1. In this letter, Parmatic sought reimbursement of $88,625.08 for its protest costs. The letter included a breakdown of counsel and in-house personnel time by date and included for each date a general description of the tasks performed.