Chase Supply, Inc.

B-411849.3 May 17, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chase Supply, Inc. of Hampton, Virginia, a small business, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursing its protest challenging the award of a purchase order to HBD Industries, Inc., of Chanute, Kansas, a large business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7M4-15-Q-0276, which was issued by the Defense Logistics Agency-Land and Maritime (DLA) for air duct hoses. We dismissed the protest after the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action by cancelling the awarded order. Chase argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency's corrective action was unduly delayed. We recommend that Chase be reimbursed its protest costs. We recommend that Chase be reimbursed its protest costs. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Chase Supply, Inc.--Costs File:  B-411849.3 Date:  May 17, 2016 Fred Fielding, Chase Supply, Inc., for the protester. John R. Hart, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s request for a recommendation that it be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing its protest is granted, where the record shows that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION Chase Supply, Inc. of Hampton, Virginia, a small business, requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursing its protest challenging the award of a purchase order to HBD Industries, Inc., of Chanute, Kansas, a large business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE7M4-15-Q-0276, which was issued by the Defense Logistics Agency-Land and Maritime (DLA) for air duct hoses.  We dismissed the protest after the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action by cancelling the awarded order.  Chase argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency’s corrective action was unduly delayed. We recommend that Chase be reimbursed its protest costs. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2015, DLA issued the RFQ to purchase 668 air duct hoses, identified under national stock number (NSN) 4720-01-398-9929.[1]  RFQ at 5.  Quotations were due by 3 p.m. on April 7, and Chase timely submitted its quotation.  Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 4, Review of Quotations, at 1; Exh. 9, Summary of Procurement, at 1.  Shortly after DLA issued the RFQ, Chase filed three protests at GAO (which were docketed as B‑411059.2, B‑411094.2, and B-411127.2), each of which concerned a different solicitation, and two of which (B‑411094.2 and B‑411127.2) concerned the same NSN at issue in B-411849.2--the protest upon which Chase seeks reimbursement here.  In these three protests, Chase alleged that DLA failed to evaluate quotations in accordance with the solicitations.[2]  Throughout the protests, the agency argued that its price evaluations were consistent with the RFQs.  See, e.g., DLA Post‑Hearing Comments, B-411059.2 et al., May 20, 2015, at 4-7. On June 24, DLA requested that protests B-411059.2, B‑411094.2, and B-411127.2 be dismissed, because the agency intended to take corrective action by cancelling the procurements due to “errors in these solicitations.”  Corrective Action Ltr., B‑411059.2 et al., June 24, 2015, at 1.  Specifically, DLA explained that “the RFQs did not provide notice to potential offerors that DLA’s procedure for making a Fair Market Price . . .