BNUMBER:  B-270514.2
DATE:  February 13, 1996
TITLE:  All Marine Services, Ltd.--Entitlement to Costs

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

Matter of:All Marine Services, Ltd.--Entitlement to Costs

File:     B-270514.2

Date:     February 13, 1996

Martin P. Willard, Esq., Perkins Coie, for the protester.
W. Michael Rose, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its 
protest, where the protest elicited corrective action on the part of 
the agency 1 month after it was filed with the General Accounting 
Office, even though the protester had raised the issue with the agency 
prior to filing its protest.

DECISION

All Marine Services, Ltd. (AMS) requests that our Office declare the 
firm entitled to recover the costs of filing and pursing its protest 
of the Maritime Administration's (MARAD) award of a contract to 
Crowley Maritime Corporation.  The contract in question covered work 
formerly covered by AMS' ship manager contract 
No. DTMA91-93-C-00054, which had been terminated for the convenience 
of the government.  In its November 13, 1995 protest, AMS requested 
that its former contract be reinstated. 

We find that the protester is not entitled to recover the costs of 
filing and pursuing its protest.  

On December 14, 5 days prior to the due date for filing its agency 
report, MARAD took corrective action by offering to reinstate AMS' 
contract.  We dismissed the protest as academic on December 19.[1]

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, if the contracting agency decides 
to take corrective action in response to a clearly meritorious 
protest, we may declare the protester to be entitled to recover 
reasonable costs of filing and pursing its protest, including 
attorneys' fees.  Section 21.8(e), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,743 (Aug. 
10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(e)).  We will find an 
entitlement to costs only where an agency unduly delays taking such 
corrective action, Oklahoma Indian Corp.--Claim for Costs, 70 Comp. 
Gen. 558 (1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  558, and where an agency takes prompt 
corrective action, there is no basis for determining that the payment 
of protest costs is warranted.  See Dynair Elecs., Inc.--Entitlement 
to Costs, B-244290.2, Sept. 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  260.  Here, since the 
agency took corrective action within 1 month of the filing of the 
initial protest, we find no basis for AMS' claim for protest costs.  
We view such action, taken early in the protest process, as precisely 
the kind of prompt reaction to a protest that our Regulations are 
designed to encourage.  Aquidneck Management Assocs., 
Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-250479.2, Mar. 17, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  240.  

AMS' argues that the promptness of the corrective action should be 
measured from the time it first called the protest ground to the 
agency's attention.  By letter to the agency of October 24, AMS opined 
that MARAD's anticipated reinstatement of some, but not all, 
terminated ship manager contracts would violate the Competition in 
Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA).  AMS stated its intent to protest if 
it were excluded.  On October 31, AMS learned that MARAD intended to 
award the former AMS contract to another firm.  Two weeks later, it 
filed a protest with our Office.  

Our protest jurisdiction is limited by CICA to written objections to a 
solicitation, proposed award, or award of a contract filed with our 
Office.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3551(1), 3552 (1994).  Our authority to declare 
entitlement to protest costs extends to parties whose protests to our 
Office support a finding that a procurement statute or regulation was 
violated.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3554(c)(1).  Our Regulations providing for the 
possibility of an award of protest costs where an agency takes 
corrective action in response to a protest with our Office is intended 
to ensure fair treatment of protesters who make substantial 
investments of time and resources to pursue clearly meritorious 
protests in this forum, but who do not have the opportunity to recoup 
their costs because of agency corrective actions.  R.J. Sanders, 
Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-245388.2, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  362 
(protester not entitled to protest costs where agency took corrective 
action within 1 month after protest was filed with our Office, even 
though protester had previously filed an agency-level protest 
concerning the same matter).  It is not intended to ensure the 
fairness of agency-level processes occurring prior to the filing of a 
protest with our Office.  Aquidneck Management Assocs., 
Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, supra.  In short, the fact that AMS 
earlier raised its objection to the agency has no significance with 
respect to our finding that the agency took prompt corrective action 
after AMS filed its protest with our Office.

The request for a declaration of entitlement to costs is denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. In its request for costs, AMS had alleged that MARAD had not 
offered it reinstatement on the same basis as other contractors and so 
requested that our Office reconsider our dismissal and retain 
jurisdiction until MARAD took the corrective action it had promised.  
It is now undisputed that MARAD did offer AMS contract reinstatement 
on the same terms as other ship manager contracts and AMS  agreed to 
these terms, hence, we have no basis to reconsider our dismissal.