Quantech Services, Inc.

B-408227.4 Aug 26, 2013 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SpectrumS4, LLC, of Burlington, Massachusetts, requests that our Office recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the award of various contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8721-11-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for professional acquisition and support services. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: SpectrumS4, LLC--Costs File: B-408227.4 Date: August 26, 2013 David M. Nadler, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro LLP, for the protester. Col. Barbara Shestko, and Michael G. McCormack, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reimbursement of protest costs is denied where protest grounds cannot be determined to be clearly meritorious because record was not fully developed due to agency’s proposed corrective action in a related protest of the same procurement. DECISION SpectrumS4, LLC, of Burlington, Massachusetts, requests that our Office recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest against the award of various contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8721-11-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for professional acquisition and support services. We deny the request. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2013, SpectrumS4 protested the contract awards, challenging the agency’s technical evaluation and its decision not to conduct discussions. Spectrum did not challenge the agency’s cost/price evaluation. On April 19, PE Systems, of Littleton, Massachusetts, also protested the contract awards. PE Systems challenged the agency’s cost/price evaluation, arguing that the agency failed to conduct a proper cost realism analysis. PE Systems did not challenge the agency’s technical evaluation. On May 17, the Air Force notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to PE Systems’ protest. The agency stated that it would “revisit” the cost realism evaluation and that, if evaluation results changed, the Air Force would terminate any improper awards and make new awards as appropriate. See Notice of Correction Action at 1. PE Systems objected to the proposed corrective action, arguing that it did not fully address PE Systems’ protest issues. On May 20, the Air Force filed an agency report in SpectrumS4’s protest, denying and fully responding to the protest allegations. In support of its position, the agency submitted a memorandum of law, a contracting officer’s statement, the technical evaluation record, the award documentation, and other ostensibly relevant documents.[1] On May 21, our Office convened a joint conference call with both protesters and the Air Force to seek further clarification of the agency’s proposed corrective action in PE Systems’ protest and to discuss its implications for SpectrumS4’s protest. The Air Force explained that it intended to take corrective action by first performing a cost realism analysis in order to rank offers based on their proposal cost, then reviewing the agency’s technical and past performance evaluations, and making a new source selection decision if necessary.[2] See Air Force May 21, 2013, Email to GAO. The Air Force stated that it would also consider all of the issues raised by the protesters in their respective protests and would take additional corrective action as the agency deemed necessary. Id. On May 22, our Office dismissed SpectrumS4’s and PE System’s protests, concurrently, finding that the corrective action proposed by the Air Force rendered both protests academic. DISCUSSION SpectrumS4 requests that our Office recommend that the Air Force reimburse SpectrumS4 for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, on the basis that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action on SpectrumS4’s protest. Request for Reimbursement at 1. In SpectrumS4’s view, it should be reimbursed its costs because the Air Force delayed taking corrective action until after it was compelled to do so by our Office and after submission of its agency report. Id. at 3. When a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, our Office may recommend reimbursement of protest costs, if, based on the circumstances of the case, we determine that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest, thereby causing the protester to expend unnecessary time and resources to make further use of the protest process in order to obtain relief. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e) (2013); AAR Aircraft Servs.--Costs, B-291670.6, May 12, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 100 at 5.