DynCorp International LLC

B-409874.4 Dec 15, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DynCorp International LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we recommend reimbursement of certain costs it incurred in pursuing a protest that challenged the Department of State's award of a task order to PAE Government Services, Inc. under task order request (TOR) No. SAQMMA13R0132 to provide life and mission support services at designated facilities in Afghanistan. The agency does not dispute DynCorp's entitlement to a portion of its protest costs, but maintains that DynCorp's request is contrary to, and significantly exceeds, the amount contemplated by GAO's prior decision and recommendation in this matter. We deny DynCorp's request to the extent it seeks our recommendation of reimbursement in excess of the amount the agency has offered. We deny DynCorp's request to the extent it seeks our recommendation of reimbursement in excess of the amount the agency has offered. View Decision Decision Matter of:  DynCorp International LLC--Costs File:  B-409874.4 Date:  December 15, 2016 Richard J. Vacura, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Morgan L. Cosby, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that an agency reimburse a greater share of protester’s costs than the agency has offered to pay is denied where the agency’s offer, based on applying the “percent of pages” method, reasonably complied with GAO’s prior decision and recommendation regarding reimbursement of protest costs. DECISION DynCorp International LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we recommend reimbursement of certain costs it incurred in pursuing a protest that challenged the Department of State’s award of a task order to PAE Government Services, Inc. under task order request (TOR) No. SAQMMA13R0132 to provide life and mission support services at designated facilities in Afghanistan.  The agency does not dispute DynCorp’s entitlement to a portion of its protest costs, but maintains that DynCorp’s request is contrary to, and significantly exceeds, the amount contemplated by GAO’s prior decision and recommendation in this matter.    As discussed below, we deny DynCorp’s request to the extent it seeks our recommendation of reimbursement in excess of the amount the agency has offered. BACKGROUND On February 2, 2015, DynCorp filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency’s award of a task order to PAE.  On March 16, DynCorp submitted a supplemental protest.  In challenging the award, DynCorp raised multiple arguments, including assertions that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, failed to properly evaluate the offerors’ technical proposals, and failed to properly evaluate the offerors’ cost/price proposals.  On May 13, 2015, we sustained DynCorp’s protest on the limited basis that the agency failed to provide DynCorp an opportunity to address certain adverse past performance information during discussions, an issue that was first raised in DynCorp’s supplemental protest.  In our decision, we specifically rejected all of DynCorp’s assertions challenging various aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation.  For example, the agency assigned “marginal” ratings to DynCorp’s proposal under two of the four technical evaluation subfactors, and our decision noted that “the agency’s final evaluation record provides considerable explanation and support for its substantive assessments--most of which DynCorp’s protest fails to address in any way.”  DynCorp Int’l LLC, B-409874.2, B-409874.3, May 13, 2015, 2016 CPD ¶ __ at 10.   Additionally, DynCorp withdrew or abandoned its assertions regarding the agency’s evaluation of cost/price proposals.  Finally, in our decision, we recommended that DynCorp be reimbursed a portion of its protest costs, expressly stating that such reimbursement should be “limited to the costs relating to the basis on which we have sustained the protest.”  Id.    On June 2, 2015, DynCorp submitted its claim for costs to the agency, which it amended on June 22.  DynCorp Request for Costs, exh. 2, Cost Claim.  DynCorp’s claim was based on the premise that it was entitled to recover protest costs for all protest activities except those activities that were specifically related to “segregable unsuccessful protest grounds.”  Id. at 4.  On June 29, the agency responded to DynCorp’s cost claim, offering to reimburse DynCorp for the portion of its protest costs that reflected DynCorp’s pursuit of the single protest issue on which it prevailed, and calculating that portion using the “percentage of pages” method.  DynCorp Request for Costs, exh.