The Clark Group, LLC (W9127N19R0024)

B-419742.2 Sep 01, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Clark Group, LLC (TCG), an economically disadvantaged, women-owned small business, of Montpelier, Vermont, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with pursuing its protest of the award of five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), task order contracts under solicitation No. W9127N19R0024, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for planning and environmental studies. The protester argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency unduly delayed taking and implementing its proposed corrective action. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  The Clark Group, LLC‑‑Costs File:  B-419742.2 Date:  Sept. 1, 2021 Steve M. Sorett, Esq., Kutak Rock LLP, for the protester. Nathaniel Canfield, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where the record does not establish that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. DECISION The Clark Group, LLC (TCG), an economically disadvantaged, women-owned small business, of Montpelier, Vermont, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with pursuing its protest of the award of five indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), task order contracts under solicitation No. W9127N19R0024, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) for planning and environmental studies.  The protester argues that its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency unduly delayed taking and implementing its proposed corrective action. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The Corps awarded five IDIQ contracts and TCG filed a protest with our Office on April 11, 2021, arguing that it should have been awarded one of the five contracts because the agency’s evaluation of TCG’s proposal was unreasonable.  Req. for Costs at 1.  On May 7, 2021, the agency filed a request for dismissal, stating it intended to take corrective action by appointing a new source selection authority, reevaluating the protester’s revised proposal consistent with the solicitation, and making a revised award decision.[1]  Resp. to Req. for Costs at 1; The Clark Group, LLC, B-419742, May 17, 2021 (unpublished decision) at 1.  TCG objected to the proposed corrective action and argued that the Corps should simply award a sixth contract to TCG; it also requested that we retain jurisdiction of the protest until the Corps completed its corrective action.  Id. at 1-2 n.1. We dismissed the protest as academic on May 17. Id.  In our decision, we stated that the agency’s commitment to reevaluate the protester’s revised proposal and make a new source selection determination was sufficient to render TCG’s complaints academic.  Id. at 1.  We further informed TCG that it could file a new protest in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations in the event that the protester objects to the new source selection decision.  Id. at 1‑2 n.1; 4 C.F.R. part 21.  On June 1, TCG filed this request for reimbursement of costs. DISCUSSION TCG argues that reimbursement of its protest costs is warranted here because its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action.  In this regard, TCG argues that “there is no indication in the record that [the Corps] actually had taken any corrective action as of May 12”, which was the deadline for the agency report.  Req. for Costs at 2.  TCG essentially argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action because the agency failed to implement its proposed corrective action before the agency report was due.  For the reasons discussed below, we deny the request. When an agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, we may recommend the agency reimburse the protester its protest costs if, under the circumstances, we determine the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e); Information Ventures, Inc.-‑Costs, B-294580.2 et al., Dec. 6, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 244 at 2-3.  In other words, to prevail in its request, the protester must show (1) the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action, and (2) its protest was not only meritorious, but clearly meritorious.  Triple Canopy, Inc.-‑Costs, B‑310566.9, B-400437.4, Mar. 25, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 62 at 3. Here, the record does not indicate the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action.  The agency notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action on May 7, which was prior to the due date for the agency report.  The Clark Group, LLC, B-419742, Dkt. No. 9.