B-293134.2, Blue Rock Structures, Inc.--Costs, October 26, 2005

B-293134.2 Oct 26, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Blue Rock Structures, Inc. requests that our Office recommend the amount that the Department of the Navy should reimburse it for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-293134, Feb. 6, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 63. In that decision, we sustained Blue Rock's protest of the award of contracts to six other offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. N6247003R0839, for construction services at the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. We recommend that the Navy reimburse Blue Rock $19,728.52 for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. View Decision B-293134.2, Blue Rock Structures, Inc.--Costs, October 26, 2005 Decision Matter of: Blue Rock Structures, Inc.--Costs File: B-293134.2 Date: October 26, 2005 Brent Hartness for the protester. Richard G. Welsh, Esq., and Kenneth G. Wilson, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Attorney's fees need not be allocated between sustained and denied protest issues where issues were interconnected and based on common factual underpinnings. 2. Hourly fee for attorney for small business protester that exceeds benchmark set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 33.104(h)(5) is nonetheless reasonable where fee is consistent with customary rates for similar work by attorneys of similar experience in the community in which the attorney practices. 3. Protester is not entitled to reimbursement for time spent discussing settlement since settlement discussions are not in pursuit of the protest. 4. Protester is not entitled to recover the costs associated with preparing for and attending a debriefing since time spent by a potential protester in ascertaining whether it has a basis for protest is not time spent in pursuit of the protest. 5. Protester is not entitled to recover profit on its employees' time. DECISION Blue Rock Structures, Inc. requests that our Office recommend the amount that the Department of the Navy should reimburse it for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest in Blue Rock Structures, Inc., B-293134, Feb. 6, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 63. In that decision, we sustained Blue Rock's protest of the award of contracts to six other offerors under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62470'03'R'0839, for construction services at the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. We recommend that the Navy reimburse Blue Rock $19,728.52 for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. In our decision on the protest, we found that the source selection authority had failed to furnish an adequate rationale for his determination that lower technically rated, lower-priced proposals represented a better value to the government than the protester's higher technically rated, higher-priced one. We recommended, among other things, that the protester be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. We noted that the protester's certified claim for such costs, detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, was to be submitted directly to the agency within 60 days of receipt of our decision. Blue Rock submitted a certified claim for costs totaling $28,774 to the agency on April 5, 2004. Later the same day, the protester supplemented its claim with a breakdown of the tax, insurance, and fringe benefit rates and the hourly wage rates for the company employees for whose time it sought reimbursement. On August 23, Blue Rock further supplemented its claim with a copy of its weekly payroll report for the week ending on April 4, 2004. Beginning in December, the parties engaged in several exchanges of correspondence regarding various aspects of the claim, including whether activities such as attendance at the debriefing were undertaken in pursuit of the protest, the severability of the issues on which the protester prevailed from those on which it did not, the reasonableness of the hourly rate of the protester's attorney, and the reasonableness of the number of hours that corporate officers of the protester claimed to have worked on the protest. By letter dated March 15, 2005, the protester informed the agency that if the two sides were unable to reach an expedited agreement on the reimbursable costs associated with its protest, it intended to submit the matter to our Office. Approximately a week later, the agency responded that since it still did not agree with the protester as to the amount Blue Rock should recover, the protester was free to pursue the matter with our Office.