BNUMBER:  B-274201.2; B-274202.2 
DATE:  April 7, 1998
TITLE: New Breed Leasing Corporation--Reconsideration, B-274201.2; B
-274202.2, April 7, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:New Breed Leasing Corporation--Reconsideration

File:     B-274201.2; B-274202.2

Date:April 7, 1998

Matthew A. Simchak, Esq., Philip J. Davis, Esq., and Phillip H. 
Harrington, Esq., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, for the protester.
Dana N. Smith, Esq., and Gregory L. Fronimos, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.   
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

General Accounting Office does not recommend that protester be 
reimbursed for proposal preparation costs for proposals submitted 
under canceled set-aside solicitations where recommendation in protest 
would have permitted protester to participate in recompetition; fact 
that protester may no longer be eligible to participate in 
competition, which is a small business set-aside, does not justify 
award of proposal preparation costs. 

DECISION

New Breed Leasing Corporation requests reconsideration of our 
decision, New Breed Leasing Corp., B-274201, B-274202, Nov. 26, 1996, 
96-2 CPD  para.  202, in which we sustained New Breed's protests and 
recommended that New Breed be reimbursed for its costs of filing and 
pursuing its protests.  New Breed contends that we should have 
recommended that it be reimbursed for its proposal preparation costs 
as well. 

We deny the request for reconsideration.    

New Breed protested the Department of the Navy's cancellation of 
solicitation Nos. N00189-94-R-0304 and N00189-94-R-0315 for material 
handling and logistics support services at various sites throughout 
the world, and the sole source extensions of contract Nos. 
N-00189-94-D-0003 and N-00189-94-D-0006, held by Management 
Consulting, Inc., (Mancon) for those services.  The canceled 
solicitations were issued as small business set-asides.  

New Breed maintained that the solicitation cancellations and the sole 
source contract extensions resulted from the Navy's lack of advance 
planning.  We agreed, concluding that the noncompetitive procedures 
used by the Navy to extend Mancon's contracts resulted from a lack of 
reasonable advance planning by agency officials and, therefore, 
violated 10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(f)(5) (1994).  In view of the agency's 
undisputed need for the services at issue, we recommended that the 
agency make expeditious efforts to competitively acquire the services, 
and terminate Mancon's contracts upon successful completion of such 
efforts.  We also recommended that New Breed recover its cost of 
filing and pursuing its protests, including reasonable attorneys' 
fees.  

The agency subsequently issued revised solicitations, again as total 
small business set-asides.  It appears, however, that by the time the 
revised solicitations were issued, New Breed no longer qualified as a 
small business for purposes of this procurement.  New Breed's 
reconsideration request essentially asserts that, in light of the 
reprocurement, its earlier proposal efforts were wasted and we should 
therefore recommend that it also be reimbursed for its proposal 
preparation costs.  We decline to make this recommendation.

Not every flaw or irregularity in the procurement process entitles an 
offeror to recover the expenses incurred in submitting a proposal.  I. 
E. Levick and Assocs.,  B-218294.2, Apr. 12, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  424 at 
2.  Instead, recovery of proposal preparation costs is limited to 
situations in which the protester had a substantial chance of 
receiving the award, but was unreasonably excluded from competing, and 
corrective action is not practicable.  See, e.g., Infrared Techs. 
Corp.--Recon., B-255709.2, Sept. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  132 at 5; 
Universal Shipping Co., Inc.--Recon., B-223905.3, B-223905.4, Aug. 4, 
1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  125 at 8.  Our earlier recommendation anticipated 
that New Breed would be able to compete for essentially the same 
contracts as those contemplated under the canceled solicitations; 
since that corrective action was available, we did not recommend 
reimbursement of proposal preparation costs.  See Microlog Corp., 
B-237486, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  227 at 6.  While New Breed may 
have been unable to participate in the recompetition (which, like the 
initial competition, is a small business set-aside), that is not 
because of any action by the agency, but rather because of the change 
in the firm's size status.

We note in this regard that New Breed does not assert, nor is there 
any indication in the record, that the agency's actions in canceling 
the initial solicitations were motivated by a desire to exclude New 
Breed from the competition.  In responding to New Breed's 
reconsideration request, the Navy specifically states that its prior 
actions were not in any way the result of a malicious or specific 
intent to disadvantage New Breed.  New Breed filed a response to the 
Navy submission in which it does not challenge the Navy's statement on 
this point.

On the facts presented here, we do not view the situation as one where 
corrective action was not practicable at the time of our initial 
decision or where New Breed was unreasonably excluded from either the 
initial procurement or the recompetition.  Thus, recovery of proposal 
preparation costs is not warranted.  

The reconsideration request is denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States