BNUMBER:  B-270275.2
DATE:  February 13, 1997
TITLE:  Aztec Development Company--Claim for Costs

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

Matter of:Aztec Development Company--Claim for Costs

File:     B-270275.2

Date:February 13, 1997

Troy M. Deal, Jr. for the protester.
Talbot J. Nicholas II, Esq., Department of Transportation, United 
States Coast Guard, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Amounts claimed for costs of filing and pursuing protest may be 
recovered to the extent that they are adequately documented and are 
shown to be reasonable; reimbursement is not allowed for lost profits 
and for cost of filing reimbursement claim with the procuring agency.

DECISION

Aztec Development Company requests that our Office determine the 
amount it is entitled to recover from the Department of 
Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for the costs of filing and 
pursuing a bid protest that we sustained in our decision Aztec Dev. 
Co., B-270275, Feb. 21, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  108.  Aztec has filed a claim 
for approximately $76,000; the Coast Guard recommends payment of 
$10,862 to the firm.  We determine that Aztec is entitled to recover 
$11,311.73.

On February 26, 1996, Aztec received our decision sustaining its 
protest of the agency's rejection of its bid (under invitation for 
bids No. DTCGG1-95-
B-3WK331 for survey and dredging services) as materially unbalanced.  
Noting that performance of the contract had been completed, we 
recommended that the Coast Guard reimburse Aztec the costs of filing 
and pursuing the protest, and the firm's bid preparation costs; the 
decision notified Aztec that it should submit its detailed and 
certified claim for costs directly to the agency within 90 days after 
receipt of the decision.  Aztec filed its claim with the Coast Guard 
on May 24, but the parties have been unable to resolve the matter.  On 
July 29, Aztec filed this claim with our Office requesting that we 
determine the amount to be paid by the Coast Guard.

A protester seeking to recover the costs of pursuing its protest must 
submit sufficient evidence to support its monetary claim.  Custom 
Prod. Mfg., Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-235431.7, May 9, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
236.  The amount claimed may be recovered to the extent that the claim 
is adequately documented and is shown to be reasonable.  Patio Pools 
of Sierra Vista, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp. Gen. 383 (1989), 89-1 
CPD  para.  374.  At a minimum, claims for reimbursement of expenses must 
identify and support the amounts claimed for each individual expense 
(including cost data to support the calculation of claimed hourly 
rates for employees), the purpose for which that expense was incurred, 
and how the expense relates to the protest filed at the General 
Accounting Office.  Maintenance and Repair--Claim for Costs, 
B-251223.4, June 24, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  381; Diverco, Inc.--Claim for 
Costs, 
B-240639.5, May 21, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  460.  Although the requirement 
for documentation may sometimes entail practical difficulties, the 
burden is on the protester to submit sufficient evidence to support 
its claim, and that burden is not met by inadequately supported 
statements that particular costs have been incurred.  Hydro Research 
Science, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp. Gen. 506 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  
572.

Aztec first requests payment from the Coast Guard for $26,200 in lost 
profits that the firm contends it would have received had it been 
awarded the contract.  We disallow this aspect of Aztec's claim since 
there is no legal basis for allowing recovery of lost profits.  
Firebird Constr. Corp.--Recon., B-246182.2, May 27, 1992, 92-1 CPD 
473.[1]

Aztec next claims $24,200.36 in costs for pursuing its protest and has 
submitted lists of claimed costs for activities performed and expenses 
incurred by the firm between August 1995 and April 1996.  Aztec, 
however, did not file its protest with our Office until October 20, 
1995, and we issued our decision sustaining the protest on February 
21, 1996.  Consequently, we disallow the costs claimed to have been 
incurred both prior to the filing of the protest (including the costs 
claimed for pursuit of Aztec's agency-level protest) and after the 
issuance of our protest decision, since they are not reasonably 
related to Aztec's pursuit of the protest to our Office.  Techniarts 
Eng'g--Claim for Costs, 69 Comp. Gen. 679 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para. 152; 
Komatsu Dresser Co.--Claim for Costs, B-246121.2, Aug. 23, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  112; Diverco, Inc.--Claim for Costs, supra.  

For costs incurred between the protester's filing and our decision, 
Aztec has submitted an itemization of its personnel's work hours, and 
applicable hourly rates, relating to the pursuit of its protest.  The 
Coast Guard reports that it finds the claimed hourly rate of $150 for 
the chairman of the company reasonable.  Multiplying the $150 rate by 
the number of hours (60.75) claimed for the chairman's time and 
activities between the time period of October 20, 1995, and February 
21, 1996 (i.e., during the pendency of the protest to our Office), we 
calculate payment for the chairman's time in pursuing the protest at 
$9,112.50.

The Coast Guard contends, however, that the claimed hourly rate of $75 
for administrative assistants is unreasonably excessive and 
inadequately supported, and that the agency considers $25 to be a more 
reasonable hourly rate for this labor category.  Aztec supports the 
$75 rate by stating that more than one administrative assistant worked 
on the protest at a time, and that "a fair and reasonable Lump Sum 
Rate was determined to include the cost of these various personnel."  

As stated above, a reimbursement claim must identify and support the 
amounts claimed for each individual expense, with cost data to support 
the calculation of claimed hourly rates.  Maintenance and 
Repair--Claim for Costs, supra.  Aztec has not provided any supporting 
cost documentation reflecting the employees' actual rates of 
compensation, however.  Moreover, assuming that $25 per hour is a 
reasonable rate for a single administrative assistant--which Aztec 
does not dispute--the documentation submitted by the protester does 
not, in our view, identify with sufficient detail the individual 
activities of each of the administrative assistants to justify an 
across-the-board application of the lump sum rate to hours claimed for 
work allegedly performed contemporaneously.  For example, (1) for one 
date, Aztec claims 1 hour of administrative assistant time, at the 
lump sum hourly rate of $75, to fax and mail a document, which would 
reflect three people each working an hour at $25 each, and (2) for 
another date, Aztec claims 3 hours of the chairman's time (at $150 per 
hour), and 8 hours of administrative assistant time at the lump sum 
rate, to "review, edit, and finalize with exhibits," and fax, a 
20-page protest submission--which would reflect three assistants each 
working 8 hours on the effort.  Absent additional detail, we are 
unwilling to apply the claimed lump-sum rate to every instance in 
which an administrative assistant might have been utilized. 

Nonetheless, neither our Office nor the Coast Guard has any basis to 
dispute Aztec's assertion that administrative assistants were used 
during the identified protest period.  Because a $25 hourly rate 
evidently corresponds to this labor category, and since the record 
does not support the consistent application of a lump-sum rate, we 
believe Aztec should be reimbursed for the claimed number of hours for 
the relevant period of time (October 20, 1995, to February 21, 1996) 
for administrative assistant(s) work (i.e., 59.25 hours) at an hourly 
rate of $25, which totals $1,481.25.

Aztec next claims reimbursement for certain other expenses, including 
facsimile transmission charges and miscellaneous costs, stated as 
lump-sum amounts, for items such as computer usage, photocopying (for 
supplies and a technician), assorted supplies, mailing costs and costs 
for the facsimile machine technician's time.[2]  We accept the 
lump-sum amounts as reasonable except for items regarding facsimile 
transmission telephone charges and outgoing telephone charges.  The 
facsimile charges on Aztec's list of miscellaneous expenses reflect a 
slightly inaccurate transcription from the telephone company bills 
provided by the protester for its facsimile machine's transmissions; 
we have used the actual bills to calculate the correct facsimile 
transmission costs ($51.48) for the protest period.  We disallow the 
claimed outgoing telephone call charges of $10.55 as inadequately 
supported and unrelated to the protest period.  Consequently, we 
conclude that payment should be made in the amount of $717.98 for the 
listed miscellaneous expenses.

Aztec also requests payment of $21,468.50 for costs related to the 
preparation and submission of its claim for costs submitted to the 
Coast Guard, and $4,600 for the costs involved in bringing the current 
claim to our Office; Aztec contends that these costs were incurred in 
pursuit of its protest.  We disallow these costs.  First, the costs of 
filing and pursuing a bid protest at the General Accounting Office do 
not include costs associated with pursuing a claim for those costs 
with the contracting agency.  Manekin Corp.--Claim for Costs, 
B-249040.2, Dec. 12, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  237.  Second, we will disallow 
reimbursement for costs allegedly incurred in pursuing a claim to our 
Office where, as here, the agency acted reasonably expeditiously in 
responding to the claim filed with the agency.  Id.  The record shows 
that Aztec first filed its claim nearly 3 months after its receipt of 
our decision sustaining its protest, and that the agency responded and 
expressed its concerns regarding the claim to Aztec within 2 months of 
its receipt of the claim.  Given the reasonableness of the agency's 
concerns about certain aspects of the claim, as discussed in this 
decision, and the agency's reasonably expeditious response to the 
claim in light of those concerns, Aztec is not entitled to the costs 
of challenging the agency's position regarding the claim.  See ViON 
Corp.--Claim for Costs, B-256363.3, Apr. 25, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  219.

Finally, Aztec requests interest on the claim for protest costs.  The 
request is denied, since such payment is not authorized by any 
statute.  John Peeples--Claim for Costs, 70 Comp. Gen. 661 (1991), 
91-2 CPD  para.  125.

In sum, we find that Aztec is entitled to be reimbursed a total of 
$11,311.73 for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest.[3]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its comments responding to the agency's report on the claim, 
Aztec requests that it be paid $9,611.62 for its bid preparation costs 
pursuant to the recommendation in our February 21 decision.  Aztec, 
however, did not pursue bid preparation costs in its May 24 claim to 
the Coast Guard.  Our decision sustaining the protest cautioned the 
protester to file its claim for such costs, detailing and certifying 
the time expended and costs incurred, with the contracting agency 
within 90 days after receipt of our decision.  Aztec's failure to file 
the claim for its bid preparation costs within that time resulted in 
forfeiture of the firm's right to recover those costs.  Test Sys. 
Assocs., Inc.--Claim for Costs, 72 Comp. Gen. 169 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  
351.  

2. Aztec explains that it also included costs labeled "faxes" to 
reflect "fax machine overhead" costs.  These costs, however, are 
inadequately supported; we also note that the expenses claimed for the 
use of the facsimile machine already appear to be accounted for in 
Aztec's allowed claim for actual facsimile transmission costs (as 
charged by the telephone company), the time of the facsimile machine 
technician, and supplies.  

3. The $449.73 difference between this amount and the amount 
recommended by the Coast Guard reflects our allowance of certain 
additional miscellaneous expenses and correction of calculation 
errors.