B-400197.2, Coronet Machinery Corporation--Costs, November 18, 2008
Decision
Matter of: Coronet Machinery Corporation--Costs
Alani
Golanski, Esq., Law Offices of Alani Golanski, for the protester.
Maj. Walter R. Dukes, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Request for reimbursement of protest costs is denied where record fails to establish that the agency delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.
DECISION
Coronet Machinery Corporation,
of
We deny the request.[1]
Our Office may recommend that a
protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing a protest where the contracting
agency takes action which renders a protest academic prior to our issuing a
protest resolving the merits of the protest.
Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(e); Information Ventures,
Inc.--Costs,
B-294567.2,
In our view, a basis for the
award of costs does not exist in this protest, since the Army initiated
corrective action on June 18, 10 days prior to the June 28 report due date which,
as mentioned above, is the point at which we will generally determine that an
agency has not acted promptly. Since the
agency’s corrective action has not been shown to have been unduly delayed, and
since we do not recommend the award of protest costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, there is no basis to recommend
reimbursement of protest costs.
Accordingly, the request for reimbursement of costs is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
Coronet requests reimbursement of its costs pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. sect. 504 (1982); however, there is no legal basis that would
permit recovery of protest costs under this statute. J.C. Yamas Co., B-211105.2,
sect. 3554(c)(1) (2000), as implemented by our Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.8(e) (2008).