Baine Clark--Costs, B-290675.3, September 23, 2002

B-290675.3 Sep 23, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed based upon the agency's corrective action is denied where the record does not establish that the protest was clearly meritorious. That the solicitation was insufficiently detailed to allow for the preparation of quotes. That the agency was biased in favor of the WWGA. Denied that its purchase request was insufficiently detailed or that it was biased in favor of the WWGA. We dismissed as untimely Baine Clark's allegation that the solicitation was insufficiently detailed. Because the record established that the protester believed at the time it filed its initial protest that the solicitation was insufficiently detailed but did not raise this issue until its supplemental protest after the filing of the agency's report. View Decision Baine Clark--Costs, B-290675.3, September 23, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Baine Clark requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the terms of the Department of Agriculture's proposed lease of a fixed-wing aircraft to be used by the agency in support of its predator control activities in the state of Wyoming. We deny the request. The western regional office of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, Department of Agriculture, provides various programs, including predator control services, in Wyoming. In support of its predator control services, the agency leased three aircraft for use in Wyoming: two airplanes from Baine Clark and one airplane from the Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA). In April 1992, the agency decided that it needed to lease a fourth aircraft for use in Wyoming and that it would restrict this lease to an Aviat A-1B Husky, as the aircraft, in order to test and evaluate that particular model. On June 10, 2002, Baine Clark filed a protest and, after receipt of the agency's report, a supplemental protest to our Office, complaining that Agriculture had unduly restricted the lease to an Aviat A-1B Husky aircraft, that the solicitation was insufficiently detailed to allow for the preparation of quotes, and that the agency was biased in favor of the WWGA. In defending its actions, Agriculture explained the basis for its restriction to an Aviat A-1B Husky aircraft, and denied that its purchase request was insufficiently detailed or that it was biased in favor of the WWGA. On August 1, we dismissed as untimely Baine Clark's allegation that the solicitation was insufficiently detailed, because the record established that the protester believed at the time it filed its initial protest that the solicitation was insufficiently detailed but did not raise this issue until its supplemental protest after the filing of the agency's report. Also, on August 1, we requested additional information from Agriculture concerning Baine Clark's remaining protest allegations. Prior to submission of this additional information, Agriculture informed our Office and the protester that it would take corrective action by amending the solicitation to provide that lessors may quote an Aviat A-1B Husky aircraft or equivalent. The agency stated that it took this corrective action "to avoid additional delay." On August 13, based upon the agency's corrective action, we dismissed as academic Baine Clark's complaint that the solicitation had been improperly restricted to an Aviat A-1B Husky aircraft. Subsequently, on August 21, we dismissed Baine Clark's remaining protest allegation that the agency was biased in favor of the WWGA because Baine Clark's allegations did not demonstrate that any of Agriculture's actions amounted to bias or that these actions translated into action that unfairly or prejudicially affected the protester's competitive position. Baine Clark requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed its protest costs because Agriculture had unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of the protester's assertedly meritorious protest, challenging the restriction of the solicitation to the lease of an Aviat A-1B Husky. Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, our Office may recommend that protest costs be reimbursed only where we find that an agency's action violated a procurement statute or regulation. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3554(c)(1) (2000). Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that where the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in response to a protest, we may recommend that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.8(e) (2002).