Request that GAO recommend the agency reimburse the protester the costs it incurred pursuing its successful protest is denied, where the protester repeatedly declined to provide documents substantiating its costs. GAO also denied the protester’s request for reimbursement of the costs incurred to pursue its claim, because the delay in resolving the claim was due to the protester’s failure to substantiate its costs. GAO dismissed a portion of the request totaling $350, because the agency agreed to pay that amount.
AeroSage LLC asked GAO to recommend that the Defense Logistics Agency reimburse it $26,450 for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of a request for proposals for the delivery of fuel products in New England.
GAO had sustained a portion of AeroSage’s protest, finding that DLA failed to consider that two of ten contract line item numbers were valued between $3,500 and $150,000, and accordingly did not set them aside for small businesses. All other allegations were dismissed or denied.
AeroSage submitted a certified claim to DLA, which asked for additional supporting information. After the parties failed to reach agreement, AeroSage filed this request with GAO.
In its request, AeroSage argued that it should be reimbursed the cost of pursuing its protest and its claim. AeroSage sought $26,450, for over 110 hours of work allegedly performed by its president, at $250 per hour, in pursuit of both the protest and subsequent claim. In response, the agency explained that it could not reach an agreement with AeroSage because the claim lacked sufficient supporting documentation.
GAO found that AeroSage’s first certified claim consisted of a letter to DLA; a printout of a page from a payroll website; and a table with columns for: dates, hours, a billable rate per hour, and total costs. The protester later amended its claim to include a letter from AeroSage’s certified public accountant and a revised table with columns to also include a description of work performed, and identification of the entity for which the work was performed.
Based on these submissions, GAO found DLA reasonably concluded that AeroSage failed to provide the cost data necessary to support the billable hourly rate requested by AeroSage for its president, Mr. Snyder. For example, the letter from the CPA did not include payroll or tax records or explain the method used to calculate Snyder’s hourly rate. Accordingly, GAO declined to recommend reimbursement for these hours.
GAO dismissed AeroSage’s request for reimbursement of the $350 EPDS filing fee, as the agency did not dispute this amount.
Next, GAO considered AeroSage’s request for reimbursement of the costs it incurred pursuing its claim with GAO. However, GAO explained that it would do so only if the protester could show the agency’s responses were unreasonably delayed. GAO found DLA had responded in a timely fashion to AeroSage’s claim and requested specific documents it would need to verify the claim costs. In some cases, several weeks passed without a response from AeroSage. GAO found that any delay in resolving the claim appeared to have been caused by AEroSage’s failure to provide the information requested by the agency and failure to timely respond to the agency’s inquiries. Consequently, GAO had no basis to recommend reimbursement of these costs.
AeroSage LLC is represented by David M. Snyder. The government is represented by Howard M. Kauffer, Matthew Vasquez, and Christopher S. Colby, Defense Logistics Agency. GAO attorneys Young S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
