Hope Village, Inc.

B-414342.7 Aug 30, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hope Village, Inc., of Washington, DC, requests our Office recommend that the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), reimburse Hope Village the costs it incurred in pursuing a claim at our Office and for the costs of filing and pursuing its claim. We deny the protester's request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Hope Village, Inc.--Costs File:  B-414342.7 Date:  August 30, 2019 Christopher R. Yukins, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Michael E. Samuels, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Nihar Vora, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation to reimburse costs associated with pursuing a claim at our Office is denied where:  (1) the protester submitted its certified claim to the agency while the agency requested reconsideration of our recommendation to reimburse the protester its costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest; and (2) the agency did not unreasonably delay in agreeing to reimburse the protester after our Office issued the decision denying the agency’s request for reconsideration.  DECISION Hope Village, Inc., of Washington, DC, requests our Office recommend that the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), reimburse Hope Village the costs it incurred in pursuing a claim at our Office and for the costs of filing and pursuing its claim. We deny the protester’s request. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2018, Hope Village filed its protest challenging the award of a contract to CORE DC, LLC, for residential re-entry center and home confinement services.  The protest challenged the evaluation of both Hope Village’s and CORE DC’s proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the agency’s responsibility determination. On February 21, 2019, we denied or dismissed all of Hope Village’s challenges to the evaluation of its proposal, but sustained Hope Village’s challenge to the evaluation of CORE DC’s proposal.  Hope Village, Inc., B-414342.2 et al., Feb. 21, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 86.  The decision first concluded that the agency reasonably evaluated Hope Village’s proposal as unsatisfactory.  Nonetheless, the decision concluded that Hope Village was an interested party to challenge the evaluation of CORE DC’s proposal because the limited record before GAO during the pendency of that protest indicated that CORE DC submitted the only proposal found acceptable for award.[1]  Id. at 8.  Because Hope Village’s challenge to the evaluation of CORE DC’s proposal was sustained, one of our recommendations was that the agency reimburse the protester its costs associated with filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.  Id. at 11. On March 1, BOP requested reconsideration of our prior decision, arguing that the determination that Hope Village was an interested party to challenge the evaluation of CORE DC’s proposal was based on an error of fact in the decision.  Request for Reconsideration at 3-7.  In this regard, the agency asserted that information provided in redacted portions of its source selection decision--which it did not disclose to our Office‑-revealed that there was at least one offeror, other than CORE DC, that the agency found to be acceptable for award.  Id. at 4-5.  The agency argues that the error of fact and the “information not previously considered” warranted reversal of our prior decision.  Id.  The agency also requested that our Office reverse our recommendation that the agency reimburse the protester its costs associated with its filing and pursuing its protest.  Id. at 1, 7.  On April 15, Hope Village submitted its certified cost claim of $66,856.97 to the agency.  Claim for Protest Costs, attach. A, Certified Cost Claim to Agency. By decision dated May 21, our Office denied the request for reconsideration concluding that the previously redacted portions of the record did not provide a basis for reconsideration because while the agency had this information, it did not furnish the information in the prior protest proceedings.  Department of Justice; Hope Village, Inc.--Recon., B-414342.5, B-414342.6, May 21, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 195 at 5-6.  That same day, Hope Village submitted an inquiry to the agency regarding the status of its cost claim.  Hope Village again submitted another inquiry on June 3.  Claim for Protest Costs, attach.