Barbaricum LLC (1281807)

B-416728.4 Jan 29, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Barbaricum LLC, of Washington, D.C., requests that our Office recommend reimbursement by the Department of the Air Force of Barbaricum's costs of defending against an Air Force request for reconsideration of a prior decision sustaining a challenge filed by Barbaricum of an Air Force task order for opinion research services, as well as the costs of pursuing this request. We grant the 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:  Barbaricum LLC--Costs File:  B-416728.4 Date:  January 29, 2020 David Y. Yang, Esq., and Daniel P. Radthorne, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for the protester. Colonel C. Taylor Smith and Jason R. Smith, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s request for a recommendation for the reimbursement of costs of defending against the agency’s request for reconsideration is granted where protester incurred additional expense in responding to the request, and where the request for reconsideration failed to identify errors of fact or law in our prior decision and repeated previously-made arguments which our Office considered and rejected.  DECISION   Barbaricum LLC, of Washington, D.C., requests that our Office recommend reimbursement by the Department of the Air Force of Barbaricum’s costs of defending against an Air Force request for reconsideration of a prior decision sustaining a challenge filed by Barbaricum of an Air Force task order for opinion research services, as well as the costs of pursuing this request. We grant the request. BACKGROUND This request for reimbursement of costs relates to an underlying decision of our Office sustaining Barbaricum’s challenge to the Air Force’s issuance of a task order under a request for quotations (RFQ) using Federal Supply Schedule procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4.  While portions of the protest were denied, we sustained Barbaricum’s contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation as technically acceptable.  Barbaricum LLC, B‑416728, B‑416728.2, Dec. 3, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 153.  Specifically, our prior decision noted that the RFQ set out express requirements for vendors’ staffing plans, and the record provided no basis to conclude that the agency reasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation as technically acceptable in this area.  Id. at 8-9.  We reached this conclusion after noting that there was a significant disparity between the awardee’s proposed labor hours and the labor hours currently used to perform the effort (and reflected in the independent government estimate of costs).  Id.  In that decision, we also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Barbaricum the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations at 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1).  Id. at 10.  A detailed description of the underlying facts in that procurement is set forth in the initial decision.  Id. at 2-5. The Air Force filed a timely request that our Office reconsider the initial decision; we denied that request.  Department of the Air Force, B-416728.3, Mar. 20, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 111.  Of relevance here, the Air Force argued that its underlying solicitation “did not allow” the agency to consider the extent of the awardee’s staffing.  Id. at 5, citing Reconsideration Request at 2.  The reconsideration decision rejected this contention and noted that our prior decision had rejected the contention as well.  Id. at 6.  In addition, the reconsideration decision concluded that the agency had not established that the underlying decision had been based on an error of fact or law requiring that the decision be reversed or modified.  Id. at 6-7.  Barbaricum filed this request on March 27, 2019. DISCUSSION Barbaricum requests that GAO recommend reimbursement of its costs of defending against the agency’s request for reconsideration, as well as the costs of filing this request.  Since our earlier decision sustaining Barbaricum’s underlying protest already recommended that the Air Force reimburse the costs of pursuing the protest, those costs are not at issue here. When we have sustained a protest and recommended the reimbursement of protest costs, and when the agency then asks us to reconsider our decision, the costs attendant to the protester’s response may be reimbursable.  Security Consultants Grp., Inc.--Costs, B‑293344.6, Nov.