B-299600.2, Takota Corporation--Costs, September 18, 2007

B-299600.2 Sep 18, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Takota Corporation requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees, in connection with its protest of invitation for bids (IFB) No. HSCG83-06-B-3WF381, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (the Coast Guard) for replacement pier services at the Coast Guard's Little Creek Station, in Norfolk, Virginia. In its protest, Takota challenged the agency's decision to cancel the initial solicitation instead of making award to Takota which had submitted the lowest bid. In addition, Takota challenged the Coast Guard's award of a contract to Jessico, Inc., at a higher price for the identical or substantially similar work without giving Takota an opportunity to compete. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299600.2, Takota Corporation--Costs, September 18, 2007 Decision Matter of: Takota Corporation--Costs File: B-299600.2 Date: September 18, 2007 Thomas R. Lynch, Esq., Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, for the protester. Timothy A. Chenault, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where the record shows that there was no nexus between the bases of protest and the agency's corrective action. DECISION Takota Corporation requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees, in connection with its protest of invitation for bids (IFB) No. HSCG83-06-B-3WF381, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (the Coast Guard) for replacement pier services at the Coast Guard's Little Creek Station, in Norfolk, Virginia. In its protest, Takota challenged the agency's decision to cancel the initial solicitation instead of making award to Takota which had submitted the lowest bid. In addition, Takota challenged the Coast Guard's award of a contract to Jessico, Inc., at a higher price for the identical or substantially similar work without giving Takota an opportunity to compete. We deny the request. The Coast Guard issued the canceled IFB as a total small business set-aside on October 6, 2006, and bids were opened on November 16. Takota submitted the apparent low bid, which exceeded both the government estimate and available funds for the procurement. The record shows that even if additional funding was obtained, the agency was concerned that Takota's bid price was too close to the funding ceiling to cover any future changes to the IFB's scope of work. In addition, the agency had identified a need to add fuel dispensers to the pier services project, and questions were raised regarding the stated need for a debris shield (as opposed to a lower cost, lower maintenance alternative). As a result, the agency decided to cancel the IFB on December 27, and bidders were notified of the cancellation by letters dated December 28. The next day, the agency offered the replacement pier services to the Small Business Administration (SBA) as a new requirement under the SBA's section 8(a) business development program.[1] According to the Coast Guard, it considered the offered requirement to be a new acquisition based on the addition of new work, the need for a higher funding level since the project was more expensive than anticipated, and the need to procure various requirements, such as the debris shield, as optional items. Based upon the information provided by the Coast Guard, on January 4, 2007, the SBA accepted the procurement into the 8(a) business development program. Ultimately, on March 27, Jessico was awarded a noncompetitive 8(a) contract which included the new work for the fuel dispensers and the debris shield as initially required in the canceled IFB. Takota protested the award to our Office on April 2, asserting, among other things, that this procurement was improperly conducted on a sole-source basis denying Takota an opportunity to compete for this work. In preparing its response to the protest for our Office, the agency reviewed the procurement and realized that the SBA had not been informed that the prior solicitation had been issued as a small business set-aside for replacement pier services. By letters dated April 17 and April 24, the Coast Guard informed the SBA of this omission and sought an opinion from the SBA about whether the revised solicitation qualified as a new requirement and, therefore, was appropriately handled as a noncompetitive 8(a) set-aside.