BNUMBER:  B-266326.2; B-266327.2
DATE:  March 31, 1997
TITLE:  JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.--Claim for Costs

**********************************************************************

Matter of:JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.--Claim for Costs

File:     B-266326.2; B-266327.2

Date:March 31, 1997

Quin B. Johnson for the protester.
Thomas T. Basil, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest costs incurred in connection with agency-level protests 
are not recoverable. 

2.  Hours charged by an employee and consultant of a prevailing 
protester as part of its claim for pursuing its protest are excessive 
where they are not remotely related to the complexity of the protest; 
under such circumstances, the General Accounting Office will determine 
the reasonable hours that a prudent protester should expend in 
pursuing the protest.

3.  Interest on a claim for protest costs awarded by the General 
Accounting Office  is not recoverable.

4.  A protester is not entitled to reimbursement of its costs of 
pursuing its cost claim before the General Accounting Office where the 
contracting agency's handling of the claim was reasonable and 
expeditious.

DECISION

JAFIT Enterprises, Inc. requests that we determine the amount it is 
entitled to recover from the Department of the Navy for its costs of 
filing and pursuing its protests in JAFIT Enters., Inc., B-266326; 
B-266327, Feb. 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  39.

We determine that JAFIT is entitled to recover $3,537.82 out of its 
total claim of $34,513.46.

On September 27, 1995, JAFIT protested to our Office the Navy's 
noncompetitive award of purchase orders to Goodwill Industries which 
the Navy claimed were authorized under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, 41 
U.S.C.  sec.  46-48c (1994), as implemented by Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  6.302-5(b) and subpart 8.7.  We sustained the 
protests because this authority to make noncompetitive acquisitions 
only applies to awards to qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind 
or disabled providing goods or services on the procurement list 
established and maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People 
Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, and Goodwill was not on this list 
for providing the services in question.

Following our decision sustaining the protests, which found JAFIT 
entitled to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protests, 
JAFIT filed its claim for costs with the Navy.  JAFIT's claim included 
time sheets covering the period from August 27 through December 15, 
1995, for JAFIT's owner/chief executive officer (CEO) and a consultant 
hired by JAFIT, as well as information to support the hourly rate 
charged by each individual.  JAFIT's CEO charged a total of 47 hours 
to these protests at a rate of $52.93 for a total cost of $2,487.71.  
The consultant, the father of JAFIT's CEO, charged JAFIT a total of 
396 hours at a rate of $80 totaling $31,680.  The consultant also 
charged JAFIT $345.75 for 6,915 copies at $0.05 per page.  JAFIT's 
total protest cost claim is $34,513.46.

The Navy investigated the hourly rates of the CEO and the consultant 
and accepted them as reasonable.  However, the agency determined that 
the hours charged by both the CEO and the consultant, as well as the 
number of copies charged by the consultant, were excessive.  The 
parties were unable to resolve their differences, and JAFIT filed its 
claim here.

A protester seeking to recover the costs of pursuing its protest must 
submit sufficient evidence to support its monetary claim.  The amount 
claimed may be recovered to the extent that the claim is adequately 
documented and is shown to be reasonable; a claim is reasonable if, in 
its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred 
by a prudent person in pursuit of the protest.  Data Based Decisions, 
Inc.--Claim for Costs, 69 Comp. Gen. 122 (1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  538; E&R, 
Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-255868.2, May 30, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  264.  
Here, although the claim is documented and the charged rates are 
reasonable, the number of charged hours and copies are grossly 
excessive or otherwise not allowable.

Specifically, although a successful protester is entitled to recover 
its costs of pursuing a protest at the General Accounting Office 
(GAO), the costs it incurred which are attributable to an agency-level 
protest prior to protesting to our Office are not recoverable.  Armour 
of Am., Inc.--Claim for Costs, 71 Comp. Gen. 293 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  
257; Techniarts Eng'g--Claim for Costs, 69 Comp. Gen. 679 (1990), 90-2 
CPD  para.  152.  Here, JAFIT initially protested to the Navy, which denied 
the protests by letter dated September 18, 1995.  Thus, costs incurred 
by JAFIT on or prior to September 18 were attributable to its 
agency-level protests, and we therefore deduct 13 hours from the total 
hours charged by JAFIT's CEO and 128 hours from the total hours 
charged by JAFIT's consultant, which JAFIT's records show were 
incurred during the period of its agency-level protests.

The remaining 302 hours charged by JAFIT's CEO (34 hours) and 
consultant (268 hours) we consider to be grossly excessive, 
considering the nature and events of these protests.  While we do not 
accept the agency's suggestion that only hours spent researching and 
preparing the initial protest letter are allowable,[1] see Price 
Waterhouse--Claim for Costs, B-254492.3, July 20, 1993, 95-2 CPD  para.  38, 
the more than 7 man-weeks of time expended in pursuing this relatively 
simple and straight-forward protest far exceeds what a prudent person 
with some knowledge of the federal procurement system should have 
reasonably required to identify and research the applicable law and 
regulations.[2]  

Specifically, when the Navy advised JAFIT of the awards, it identified 
the regulation under which the agency purported to have authority to 
make the awards on a noncompetitive basis.  That notice was the 
impetus for JAFIT's agency-level protests.  JAFIT's correspondence to 
the Navy seeking resolution of its agency-level protest shows that 
JAFIT was aware at that time that the purported authority for making 
noncompetitive awards was not applicable because the Committee had not 
listed these services on the applicable procurement list.  Thus, very 
little research beyond what JAFIT had already done for its 
agency-level protests should have been necessary.  Moreover, although 
the Navy filed a report on the protests to which JAFIT responded, the 
Navy's report provided no legal rationale for its actions; thus, aside 
from reviewing the report to determine that the agency had not offered 
any legal support for its actions, the preparation of the protester's 
comments should not have required further research to support its 
protests.  Finally, although JAFIT's protest addressed the agency's 
improper application of FAR  sec.  6.302-5, it primarily focused upon 
issues related to administration of JAFIT's then incumbent contract; 
such issues of contract administration were not for consideration by 
our Office.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.3(m)(1) (1995).  

Although the record lacks information about the specific work 
performed by JAFIT's CEO and consultant for each hour charged, thus 
making analysis of the allowability of each hour impossible, we 
believe that a prudent person would not have required more than a 
fraction of 302 hours charged.  In such cases, we will reduce the 
number of hours to reflect a reasonable work effort, given the nature 
of the particular protest.  Armour of Am.--Claim for Costs, supra.  
Based on the above discussion, given the nature of the issues and the 
necessity of responding to the various dismissal requests and report 
filed by the agency, we consider, under these circumstances, 45 hours 
to be a reasonable estimate of the work effort that should have been 
employed here.  This is 15 percent of the hours charged.  The 
corresponding cost at the charged hourly rates of the two individuals 
is $3,485.95.

The 6,915 copies charged to this claim are also grossly excessive.  
Our review shows that much of the documents duplicated were irrelevant 
to the protest issues or were unnecessarily duplicative of documents 
already reproduced.  Of the total $345.75 charged, we determine, 
consistent with the reduction in hours charged, that 15 percent, or 
$51.87, is reasonable.

JAFIT also requests the payment of interest on its protest costs under 
FAR  sec.  33.208.  This provision provides for payment of interest on a 
contractor's claim in a dispute or appeal under the Contract Disputes 
Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C.  sec.  601-613 (1994).  A claim for protest 
costs is not subject to the CDA, which therefore does not authorize 
payment of interest on a protester's claim for protest costs.  Thus, 
JAFIT is not entitled to recover interest on its claim for protest 
costs because the payment of interest on such claims is not authorized 
by any statute.  John Peeples--Claim for Costs, 70 Comp. Gen. 661 
(1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  125; Maintenance and Repair--Claim for Costs, 
B-251223.4, June 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  381.

Additionally, JAFIT requests reimbursement of its costs incurred in 
pursuing this claim before our Office.  Our applicable Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.6(f)(2) (1995), provided that we may 
declare a protester entitled to the costs of pursuing its claim before 
our Office.  This provision was intended to encourage the agency's 
expeditious and reasonable consideration of a protester's claim for 
costs.  E&R, Inc.--Claim for Costs, supra.  Here, the Navy tendered a 
reasonable settlement offer (in excess of the amount awarded here) to 
JAFIT within 6 months of the submission of JAFIT's claim to the 
agency.  Under the circumstances, there is no basis to award JAFIT its 
costs of pursuing the claim at our Office.

In conclusion, we find that JAFIT is entitled to be reimbursed 
$3,537.82 for its costs of filing and pursuing the protest.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For example, the protester was entitled to the reasonable costs of 
reviewing and responding to the various unsuccessful requests by the 
agency that the protests be dismissed as untimely, and of reviewing 
and responding to the agency report.

2. JAFIT states that it employed the consultant because of his 
knowledge of the federal procurement system.