BAI, Inc.

B-416681.7 Aug 30, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BAI, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, a small business, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reimburse the firm for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, of preparing its quotation, and of pursuing this cost claim, with respect to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70LGLY18RSSB00003, for commercial information technology support services for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. We dismissed the protest as academic on June 21, 2019, based on the agency's announced corrective action that included terminating the award and resoliciting the procurement. We deny the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of:  BAI, Inc.--Costs File:  B-416681.7 Date:  August 30, 2019 Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Sylvia Yi, Esq., Bass Berry & Sims, PLC, for the requester. James C. Caine, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that GAO recommend that agency reimburse the protester’s costs of filing and pursuing its earlier protests, of preparing its proposal, and of the request itself, is denied where the initial protest was not clearly meritorious and where the agency took prompt corrective action in response to a supplemental protest.  DECISION BAI, Inc., of Alexandria, Virginia, a small business, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reimburse the firm for the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, of preparing its quotation, and of pursuing this cost claim, with respect to request for quotations (RFQ) No. 70LGLY18RSSB00003, for commercial information technology support services for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.  We dismissed the protest as academic on June 21, 2019, based on the agency’s announced corrective action that included terminating the award and resoliciting the procurement.  We deny the request. Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e), provide that we may recommend that an agency pay protest costs where the agency decides to take corrective action in response to the protest.  We will make such a recommendation only where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  CSL Birmingham Assocs.; IRS Partners-Birmingham--Entitlement to Costs, B‑251931.4, B‑251931.5, Aug. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD ¶ 82 at 3.  As a general rule, so long as an agency takes corrective action by the due date of its agency report, we regard the action as prompt, and will not consider a request to recommend reimbursement of protest costs.  CDIC, Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B‑277526.2, Aug. 18, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 52.  Where corrective action is unduly delayed, we will recommend reimbursement only where the underlying protest is also clearly meritorious; i.e., not a close question.  Odle Mgmt. Group, LLC, B-414952.4, Oct. 2, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 37 at 5.  A protest is clearly meritorious where a reasonable agency inquiry into the protester’s allegations would reveal facts showing the absence of a defensible legal position.  Id. The RFQ, issued May 21, 2018,[1] provided that DHS would award the contract to the vendor who submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation.  DHS initially notified BAI that the agency had awarded the contract to Creek on August 6, 2018.  Following debriefings, BAI and another vendor filed protests challenging that award, which our Office dismissed when DHS took corrective action.  Abacus Sols. Group, LLC; BAI, Inc., B‑416681, B‑416681.2, Aug. 28, 2018 (unpublished decision).  On December 19, DHS notified BAI that the agency had again awarded the contract to Creek.  After a second debriefing, BAI filed another protest, which our Office dismissed when DHS took corrective action.  BAI, Inc., B-416681.4, Feb. 5, 2019 (unpublished decision).  On April 10, 2019, DHS notified BAI for a third time that the agency had awarded the contract to Creek.  After another debriefing, BAI filed its third protest,[2] in which it argued that DHS had misevaluated quotations under the technical factor when it evaluated BAI’s quotation as unacceptable, and Creek’s as acceptable.