Global Dimensions, LLC (W50NH9-21-R-CON3)

B-421404.4 Aug 28, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Dimensions, LLC (GLD), a small business of Fredericksburg, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with pursuing its protest of the issuance of a task order to Arrow Security & Training LLC (AST), a small business of Nashua, New Hampshire. The Department of the Army issued the task order for linguist services under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. W50NH9-21-R-CON3. The protester argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its 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: Global Dimensions, LLC--Costs File: B-421404.4 Date: August 28, 2023 Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Major Brittney N. Montgomery, Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, 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 Global Dimensions, LLC (GLD), a small business of Fredericksburg, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs associated with pursuing its protest of the issuance of a task order to Arrow Security & Training LLC (AST), a small business of Nashua, New Hampshire. The Department of the Army issued the task order for linguist services under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. W50NH9‑21‑R‑CON3. The protester argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to its clearly meritorious protest. We deny the request. BACKGROUND On December 15, 2022, the agency issued a task order to AST; GLD filed a protest with our Office on January 11, 2023, arguing that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable. Resp. to Req. for Costs, exh. 1, Corrective Action Memorandum at 1. On April 13, the agency filed a request for dismissal, stating that it intended to take corrective action in a related protest that would render GLD’s protest academic. Specifically, the agency indicated it would reevaluate all proposals, make a new tradeoff decision, and if warranted, reissue the task order. Id. at 4‑5. We dismissed the protest as academic on April 17. Global Dimensions, LLC, B‑421404.1, B-421404.3, Apr. 17, 2023 (unpublished decision). On April 24, GLD filed this request for a recommendation that its costs be reimbursed. DISCUSSION GLD argues that the reimbursement of its protest costs is warranted here because its protest was clearly meritorious and the agency’s decision to take corrective action after the submission of the agency report constituted undue delay. 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. 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. Our Office generally views an agency’s action as prompt, that is, the agency did not unduly delay taking corrective action, when the corrective action is taken prior to the due date and time for submission of the agency report. PNS Holdings, LLC.--Costs, B‑418798.3, Oct. 1, 2020, 2021 CPD ¶ 93 at 2‑3. Additionally, a protest is clearly meritorious only if a reasonable agency inquiry into the protest allegations would show facts disclosing the absence of a defensible legal position. Technatomy Corp.; Octo Consulting Grp., Inc.‑‑Costs, B‑413116.49, B‑413116.50, Dec. 14, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 366 at 3. As an initial matter, the only specific protest ground that GLD claims was “clearly meritorious” is its argument that AST’s proposal could not have reasonably received an overall technical rating of “outstanding.” See Resp. to Agency Resp. to Req. for Costs at 3. In this regard, GLD argues that the agency subverted the stated evaluation criteria by giving “undue weight” to the management plan subfactor and thus, should have taken corrective action. Id.