Antonio Guillem | Shutterstock

Request for a recommendation of reimbursement of protest costs is dismissed as untimely. The protester contended it was entitled to protest costs due to the agency’s failure to implement corrective action, but the protester filed its request for costs ten months after the agency was supposed to complete corrective action. Protesters are required to diligently pursue their protest claims, and this diligent pursuit requirement applies to requests for costs. The protester’s request for costs was ten months too late.

Quantum Dynamics protested the Army’s decision to award a sole-source contract for program management services. In response to the protest, the Army took corrective action to develop a new acquisition strategy for the services it was seeking. The Army stated that it would implement the special action with 48 days. In light of the corrective action, GAO dismissed the protest as academic.

Almost ten months after the date on which the Army was supposed to implement its corrective action, Quantum filed a request that GAO recommend reimbursement of the costs it incurred protesting the sole-source decision. Quantum argued that it was seeking reimbursement because the Army had failed to implement its promised corrective action.

GAO noted that there was no evidence that the Army had made any progress in taking corrective action. Nevertheless, GAO determined that Quantum’s request for costs was untimely. Because the bid protest regulations contemplate prompt resolution of protests, GAO requires protesters to diligently pursue their protest claims. This rule of diligent pursuit applies equally to requests for a reimbursement of costs.

Here, Quantum believed it was entitled to costs due to the Army’s failure to undertake corrective action. But Quantum did not file its request for costs until almost ten months after the Army was supposed to have implemented corrective action. Indeed, while Quantum dallied, the sole-source contract it had protested had been fully performed. GAO found Quantum’s inaction demonstrated a lack of diligence and thus dismissed the request for costs.

Quantum is represented by Michael E. Samuels, and Kristen E. Ittig of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP. The agency is represented by Major Felix S. Mason and Scott N. Flesch of the U.S. Army. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo, and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.