B-297790.6, T Square Logistics Services Corporation, Inc.--Costs, June 7, 2007

B-297790.6 Jun 07, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights T Square Logistics Services Corporation, Inc. (a small business concern) requests that we recommend reimbursement of $51,611.83 in costs of pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-05-R-0006, for base operating support (BOS) services at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana. T Square also requests that it be reimbursed its costs of pursuing this claim at our Office. We recommend reimbursement in the amount of $51,611.83, plus T Square's costs of pursuing this claim at our Office. View Decision B-297790.6, T Square Logistics Services Corporation, Inc.--Costs, June 7, 2007 Decision Matter of: T Square Logistics Services Corporation, Inc.--Costs File: B-297790.6 Date: June 7, 2007 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's opposition to, and GAO's denial of, agency's request for –outcome prediction— alternate dispute resolution (ADR) cannot serve as basis to disallow otherwise reasonable protest costs. 2. Protest costs that GAO recommended be reimbursed need not be allocated between issue for which GAO attorney indicated during –outcome prediction— ADR that the likely outcome would be a sustained protest and the other issues raised by the protester, where the issues are interconnected and based on common factual underpinnings. 3. Agency's generalized objections to attorneys' hours in claim for protest costs do not provide basis to justify denying adequately documented claim showing claimed hours were reasonable and in pursuit of the protest. 4. Protester's costs incurred questioning agency's proposed corrective action prior to GAO's disposition of protest based on agency's proposed corrective action are allowable protest costs. 5. In situations where GAO recommends that protest costs be reimbursed, protester's costs of preparing request to GAO for a recommendation that its protest costs be reimbursed because of unduly delayed agency corrective action on a clearly meritorious protest are allowable protest costs. 6. Attorney fee $150 cap contained in Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. sect. 3554(c)(2)(B) (2000), is not applicable to attorneys' fees paid by small business protester. 7. Protester should be reimbursed its costs of pursuing claim for costs at GAO where the agency took no steps for 6 months to consider the claim when it was pending there and for the first time in its report on the claim provided non'meritorious arguments denying the bulk of the protester's claim. DECISION T Square Logistics Services Corporation, Inc. (a small business concern) requests that we recommend reimbursement of $51,611.83 in costs of pursuing its protest challenging the award of a contract to Data Monitor Systems, Inc., by the Department of the Air Force under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA6643-05-R-0006, for base operating support (BOS) services at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana. T Square also requests that it be reimbursed its costs of pursuing this claim at our Office. We recommend reimbursement in the amount of $51,611.83, plus T Square's costs of pursuing this claim at our Office. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on June 6, 2005, contemplated the award of a combined fixed-price and time-and-materials contract for 1 base year with nine 1-year options. The solicited BOS services included (1) base supply function, (2) motor vehicle management function, (3) traffic management function, (4) transient aircraft services, (5) recurring real property maintenance function, (6) fuels function, (7) airfield management function, and (8) meteorological function. The RFP provided for offerors to meet certain minimum qualification requirements, and to submit technical proposals addressing the program management/staffing and financial plan subfactors, which would be evaluated on a –technical acceptability— basis. The RFP provided that past performance was to be evaluated for –recency,— that is, currently ongoing or completed within the last 3 years; –relevancy,— based on the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the contracts, including the extent of performance by teaming partners and subcontractors; and quality of performance on referenced contracts. This evaluation would result in an overall confidence performance risk assessment of the offeror's ability to successfully perform the proposed effort.