B-297807.2, Al Long Ford--Costs, October 18, 2007

B-297807.2 Oct 18, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Al Long Ford (ALF) requests that we recommend that it recover $477,051.31 from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command for the costs of preparing the proposal that it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D117 and for the costs of filing and pursuing its successful protest in Al Long Ford, B-297807, Apr. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 68. We deny the request. View Decision B-297807.2, Al Long Ford--Costs, October 18, 2007 Decision Matter of: Al Long Ford--Costs File: B-297807.2 Date: October 18, 2007 Ronald G. Acho, Esq., Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho, PLC, for the protester. Vera Meza, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel 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 Protester's request for recommendation that it be reimbursed its proposal preparation and protest costs is denied where protester failed to submit an adequately documented claim in a timely manner and failed to make a reasonable attempt to reach an agreement with the agency prior to filing at Government Accountability Office. DECISION Al Long Ford (ALF) requests that we recommend that it recover $477,051.31 from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command for the costs of preparing the proposal that it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-05-R-D117 and for the costs of filing and pursuing its successful protest in Al Long Ford, B-297807, Apr. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 68. We deny the request. In Al Long Ford, we sustained ALF's protest against the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract for light utility trucks to American Equipment Company. We found that the agency should not have found ALF's delivery schedule high risk and recalculated it to the protester's prejudice without raising the matter with the protester in discussions. Because the agency had proceeded with performance and the trucks were urgently required, we did not recommend that discussions be reopened; instead, we recommended that the protester be reimbursed its proposal preparation costs. We also recommended that the agency reimburse ALF for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. Our decision advised that, in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f) (2007), ALF needed to submit its claim for such costs, detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, directly to the agency within 60 days after receipt of our decision. ALF submitted a claim for a total of $1,267,069.32 to the agency on May 31. The claim identified six ALF employees and a consultant who had participated in preparation of the proposal and furnished the total number of hours worked, a rate of compensation, and a total cost for each. The claim also identified –other— (i.e., telephone, travel, and printing) expenses incurred by each of the seven named individuals. The claim did not identify the dates on which the hours were worked or the nature of the tasks performed, nor did it include documentation supporting the claimed rates of compensation or establishing ALF's obligation to compensate the consultant. In addition, the claim was uncertified. The contracting officer responded to ALF's claim by letter dated June 7. The letter advised ALF that its claim was inadequately documented and required supplementation. Specifically, the letter instructed ALF to furnish additional data establishing the number of hours worked by its employees on the proposal and protest and their hourly rates of compensation, data supporting its other claimed costs, details of its agreement with the consultant, and documentation detailing the time expended and work performed by the consultant. The letter also advised ALF that it needed to certify its claim. On July 15, ALF submitted a revised claim certified by its chairman for a total of $871,311.32. For five of the six ALF employees, ALF furnished schedules that identified, by date and by task, the number of hours spent on various general categories of proposal-related tasks (e.g., researching regulations, preparing specifications, and communicating with suppliers) and on preparation of the protest. For the sixth employee, ALF's chairman, ALF furnished a schedule, which identified, by date, the total number of hours worked on various proposal preparation and protest-related tasks, but which did not furnish a breakdown of hours among the various tasks. ALF furnished no detail regarding the work performed by its employees (beyond identifying the general category of effort), and it furnished no documentation supporting the claimed rates of compensation. With regard to the consultant, ALF furnished an invoice, dated July 12, 2006, which billed ALF for 1,090 hours of consulting services at a rate of $250 per hour.