Zeneth Technology Partners (910031-19-R-0012)

B-418571.6 Jul 24, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Zeneth Technology Partners, of Vienna, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of Education reimburse attorneys' fees and costs that the firm incurred in filing and pursuing a protest under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 910031-19-R-0012, issued by the Department of Education for the provision of cybersecurity and privacy support services, after the agency took voluntary corrective action in response to the protest. Zeneth argues that the agency did not take timely corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. We deny 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:  Zeneth Technology Partners File:  B-418571.6 Date:  July 24, 2020 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Lana Meller, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. Megan R. Nathan, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protester be reimbursed costs of filing and pursuing protest challenging the establishment of blanket purchase agreements with various vendors is denied where the protester has not shown the initial protest was clearly meritorious or that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to the supplemental protest. DECISION   Zeneth Technology Partners, of Vienna, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that the Department of Education reimburse attorneys’ fees and costs that the firm incurred in filing and pursuing a protest under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 910031-19-R-0012, issued by the Department of Education for the provision of cybersecurity and privacy support services, after the agency took voluntary corrective action in response to the protest.  Zeneth argues that the agency did not take timely corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. We deny the request. BACKGROUND On March 15, 2020, Zeneth protested the agency’s decision to not establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with the firm.  Protest (B-418571).  Zeneth challenged various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and award decision, to which the agency responded in an agency report dated April 15, 2020.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) (B‑418571) at 6-12.  On April 27, the protester submitted comments and a supplemental protest, where the firm argued, among other things, that the agency improperly rejected its quotation based on a price realism analysis, which Zeneth argued was an unstated solicitation evaluation factor.  Protester’s Comments and Supp. Protest (B-418571) at 51-53. On May 1, before the deadline set for the receipt of the agency report in response to the supplemental protest, the agency submitted a request for dismissal, informing our office that it intended to take corrective action after considering the supplemental protests filed by various protesters, including Zeneth.  Agency Request for Dismissal (B-418571) at 1.  The agency stated that it would reevaluate all quotations and make a new source selection decision.  As a basis for determining that corrective action was warranted, the agency specifically highlighted the supplemental protest allegation that the agency conducted an improper price realism evaluation.  Id.  On May 12, we dismissed the protests because the agency’s corrective action rendered them academic.  Zeneth Technology Partners, B-418571, B‑418571.5, May 12, 2020 (unpublished decision).  This request for costs followed on May 18. DISCUSSION Zeneth argues that reimbursement is warranted because its “initial protest included clearly meritorious protest grounds, and the agency’s corrective action, taken after it filed its initial report, was unduly delayed.”  Request for Costs at 2.  The protester points to various allegations raised in its protest to support its position that reimbursement of costs is warranted.  Id. at 3-27.  Although we do not specifically address all of Zeneth’s arguments, we have fully considered each of them and conclude that none provide a basis to recommend that the agency reimburse the firm’s costs of filing and pursuing the protest. When a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, we may recommend that the agency reimburse the protester its protest costs where, based on the circumstances of the case, we determine that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest, thereby causing a protester to expend unnecessary time and resources to make further use of the protest process in order to obtain relief.  4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e); Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs, B-294580.2 et al., Dec.