Cascadian American Enterprises

B-412208.6 Jul 05, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cascadian American Enterprises (CAE), of Puyallup, Washington, a small business, requests that our Office recommend the amount it should be reimbursed by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, in connection with pursuing its successful protest in Cascadian American Enterprises, B-412208.3, B-412208.4, Feb. 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 29. We deny the request. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Cascadian American Enterprises--Costs File:  B-412208.6 Date:  July 5, 2016 Ryan P. Slaughter, Cascadian American Enterprises, for the protester. Francis X. Eugenio, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Laura Eyester, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s claim for reimbursement of its costs of preparing and filing its protest is denied where the claim is not adequately documented. DECISION Cascadian American Enterprises (CAE), of Puyallup, Washington, a small business, requests that our Office recommend the amount it should be reimbursed by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, in connection with pursuing its successful protest in Cascadian American Enterprises, B‑412208.3, B-412208.4, Feb. 5, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 29.  We deny the request. On August 3, 2015, the Army issued request for proposals (RFP) No. W912DW-15-R-0030, as a small business set-aside, for removal of Scot’s broom, brush, and other vegetation at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.  The Army received proposals from six offerors, including CAE and the awardee.  After reviewing the proposals and contacting the awardee and a second offeror with requests for further information, the agency concluded that CAE’s proposal was technically unacceptable and issued an award to the only offeror deemed to be acceptable.  On October 30, CAE filed a protest with this Office challenging the agency’s determination that its proposal was unacceptable, and contending that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions with it, and improperly failed to refer the matter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for consideration under its certificate of competency (COC) procedures.  On February 5, 2016, our Office sustained CAE’s protest finding that the agency engaged in discussions with the awardee but failed to provide the same opportunity to the protester, and the agency found the protester’s proposal to be unacceptable with respect to relevant experience, a responsibility-type factor, but failed to refer the matter to the SBA for a COC review.  Cascadian American Enterprises, supra  at 6-8.  As a result, our Office recommended, among other things, that the agency reimburse the protester its costs of filing and pursuing its protest and informed the protester that it must submit a certified claim, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the agency within 60 days of receipt of our decision.  Id. at 8-9. On March 8, CAE submitted to the Army a one page invoice in the amount of $53,160.  Agency Response to Cost Claim, Attach. 1, Invoice, at 2.  This invoice contained three line items.  The first two line items were:  234 hours for “Protest Sept. 30, 2015-Feb. 5, 2016,” at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $35,100, and 120 hours for “Response to Agency Report,” at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $18,000.  Id.  The third line item was for “Miscellaneous material costs [for $60].”  CAE also offered the agency a “[d]iscount [of $21,523] for awarding to CAE and paying within 30 days.”  Id. On March 17, the agency notified CAE that it believed the request for reimbursement was not adequately documented and the agency could not assess the reasonableness of the claimed costs.  Agency Response to Cost Claim, Attach. 2, at 1.  As a result, the agency requested an explanation for the hours expended on the protest, especially since CAE stated that it spent a total of 354 hours on the protest, which equates to “9 full work weeks.”  Id. at 2.  In addition, the agency noted CAE’s statement that it had used a rate of $150 per hour for the time spent by CAE’s owner on the protest because it is the statutory cap generally allowed for attorneys’ fees.[1]  Id. at 1.  In the agency’s response, it explained to CAE that a protester can only claim actual costs incurred and therefore, the agency needed “evidence of [the owner’s] actual hourly rate of compensation or salary at CAE; [he] can do this by providing [his] tax returns or other official documentation.”  Id. CAE responded on March 21 with a two page explanation that contained generalized statements to support the claimed 354 hours spent on the protest.  Agency Response to Cost Claim, Attach.