C.I. Lovell, Inc. (W912DW-20-Q-8010)

B-418935.2 Aug 21, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights C.I. Lovell, Inc., a small business of Harrah, Washington, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed for the costs of pursuing its protest challenging the decision of the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to exclude its quotation from consideration for award under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DW20Q8010 for various equipment and equipment operations services for use at the Mud Mountain Dam Federal Project near Enumclaw, Washington. The requester argues that our Office should recommend reimbursement of costs because the Corps has now taken corrective action in response to C.I. Lovell's protest with our Office, but refused to take action in response to C.I. Lovell's agency-level inquiry, which prompted C.I. Lovell to file a protest with GAO, and incur fees and costs associated with filing and pursuing the 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:  C.I. Lovell, Inc. File:  B-418935.2 Date:  August 21, 2020 Michael S. Bissell, Esq., and Tyler S. Waite, Esq., Campbell & Bissell, PLLC, for the protester. Alexandra M. Pollack, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation of reimbursement of the costs of filing and pursuing a protest is denied where the agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action, i.e., the corrective action was taken before the due date for the agency report. DECISION   C.I. Lovell, Inc., a small business of Harrah, Washington, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed for the costs of pursuing its protest challenging the decision of the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to exclude its quotation from consideration for award under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W912DW20Q8010 for various equipment and equipment operations services for use at the Mud Mountain Dam Federal Project near Enumclaw, Washington.  The requester argues that our Office should recommend reimbursement of costs because the Corps has now taken corrective action in response to C.I. Lovell’s protest with our Office, but refused to take action in response to C.I. Lovell’s agency-level inquiry, which prompted C.I. Lovell to file a protest with GAO, and incur fees and costs associated with filing and pursuing the protest. We deny the request. On July 16, 2020, C.I. Lovell filed a protest with our Office, docketed as B‑418935, challenging the Corps’s decision to exclude its quotation from award consideration.  Five days after the protest was filed, the agency submitted a notice of corrective action and requested dismissal of the protest.  Agency Resp. to Req. for Costs at 2.  On July 23, our Office dismissed the protest as academic.  C.I. Lovell, Inc., B‑418935, July 23, 2020 (unpublished decision). C.I. Lovell argues that it should be reimbursed for the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest because the agency refused to take action in response to C.I. Lovell’s agency-level inquiry, prompting C.I. Lovell to file a protest with GAO.[1]  Req. for Recommendation of Costs at 1; Comments at 1.  The Corps requests that our Office not recommend the payment of costs and attorney’s fees because the agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action.  Agency Resp. to Req. for Costs at 1‑2. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, if an agency decides to take corrective action in response to a protest, our Office may recommend that the agency pay the protester the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys’ fees and consultant and expert witness fees.  4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e).  This does not mean that costs should be reimbursed in every case in which an agency decides to take corrective action; rather, a protester should be reimbursed its costs where an agency unduly delayed its decision to take corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  Knowlogy Corp.--Costs, B-416208.2, Aug. 13, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 281 at 3.  When an agency takes corrective action on or before the due date set for receipt of the agency report, our Office views such action as prompt and will not recommend the reimbursement of costs.  Id.; Career Sys. Dev. Corp.--Costs, B-411346.10, July 18, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 249 at 4; Innovative Techs., Inc.--Costs, B-415810.3, Mar.