BNUMBER:  B-274871.4 
DATE:  April 28, 1999
TITLE: Chant Engineering Co., Inc.--Costs, B-274871.4, April 28,
1999
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Chant Engineering Co., Inc.--Costs

File:     B-274871.4

Date:April 28, 1999

Philip Chant for the protester.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

General Accounting Office (GAO) recommends that successful protester 
be reimbursed costs of filing and pursuing GAO protest to the extent 
they are documented and were reasonably incurred in pursuing the 
protest.

DECISION

Chant Engineering Co., Inc. requests that we determine the amount it 
should recover from the Department of the Air Force for filing and 
pursuing its protest under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F04699-96-R-A010 for two aircraft test stations.  As discussed below, 
we recommend that Chant be reimbursed $6,802 in protest costs.

In its protest, Chant alleged that the awardee's proposed electronic 
console, which was part of the test station, did not meet the RFP 
specification that all components of the electronic console "shall use 
IEEE-488 standard interface."  After our Office denied its request 
that we dismiss the protest as untimely, the Air Force submitted a 
report and then a response to the protester's comments on the report, 
in which the agency contended, in essence, that Chant misinterpreted 
the requirement for the IEEE-488 interface and that the IEEE-488 
interface requirement applied only to inter-component communications.  
The agency argued that, because the awardee "packaged" its components 
in a unique way, the IEEE-488 standard was not applicable.  The 
awardee's submissions specifically stated that only one of its 
components met the IEEE-488 standard interface requirement.  After a 
subsequent telephone conference in which all parties participated, the 
agency notified our Office that it would take corrective action by 
revising the specifications and resoliciting best and final offers.  
Our Office then dismissed the protest and Chant requested 
reimbursement for its costs of filing and pursuing its protest.  We 
recommended that Chant be awarded protest costs because we found that 
the Air Force unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to a 
clearly meritorious protest.  Chant Eng'g Co., Inc.--Request for 
Costs, B-274871.2, Aug. 25, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  58.  

Chant first submitted its claim to the Air Force on September 10, 
1997, seeking reimbursement of $37,773.  It submitted a revised claim 
on November 13, requesting reimbursement of $38,228, consisting of 
$22,119 for direct labor costs, $6,868 for overhead, $9,209 for 
general and administrative costs and $32 for mailing expenses.  
Chant's Revised Claim, Nov. 13, 1997, enclosure, at 1st unnumbered 
page.  After a series of negotiations, the Air Force, believing 
Chant's costs were not substantiated with appropriate documentation 
and that its claim of more than 500 hours of effort was excessive, 
offered Chant $3,804.81 in settlement of the claim.  Letter from Air 
Force Office of General Counsel to Chant Eng'g Co. 2 (Dec. 15, 1997).  
Chant refused the offer and submitted the matter to our Office for 
resolution.    

Chant seeks reimbursement for 508.5 hours of time for its president, 
vice-president and secretary at hourly rates of $51.03, $49.03 and 
$13.16, respectively, plus the associated overhead, general and 
administrative costs and mailing expenses noted above.  Chant's 
Submittal to GAO, Mar. 23, 1998, enclosure.  To support these 
expenses, Chant has submitted a seven-page timeline outlining by date 
the task performed, the time spent on the task and the person or 
persons performing the task.  Id.  For example, the protester 
indicates that on October 8, 1996, its vice-president spent 6 hours on 
the Internet researching a case cited by the Air Force; on November 
21, the 3 employees spent a total of 20 hours contacting component 
distributors, verifying part numbers and descriptions, confirming 
costs of IEEE-488 and non-IEEE-488 printers, and formulating general 
arguments to counter erroneous points made in the agency report; and, 
on November 22, the three employees spent a total of 14 hours reading 
the agency report, outlining arguments to rebut agency arguments, and 
discussing the protester's response.

The Air Force does not challenge the hourly rates or the overhead and 
general and administrative rates submitted by Chant or the $32 in 
mailing costs which were substantiated by invoices.  However, the 
agency argues that Chant did not provide adequate documentation or 
explanation to support its direct labor costs and related general and 
administrative and overhead costs.  The Air Force also argues that the 
direct labor hours claimed are excessive and unreasonable.

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 the pursuit of a protest.  E&R, 
Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-255868.2, May 30, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  264 at 2; 
Data Based Decisions, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-232663.3, Dec. 11, 
1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  538 at 2-3.

As a preliminary matter, we disallow all costs claimed for 164.5 labor 
hours incurred after our December 31, 1996 dismissal of Chant's 
protest because these costs relate to Chant's request for 
reconsideration and its preparation of its cost claim and were not 
incurred in pursuit of the protest.  Aztec Dev. Co.--Claim for Costs, 
B-270275.2, Feb. 13, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  73 at 4.  We also disallow costs 
for 7 direct labor hours plus associated overhead and general and 
administrative costs for which Chant does not identify the work that 
was performed.  While Chant lists these hours on its timeline at its 
December 13 entry, Chant specifically writes that it is "[u]nable to 
account for this time."  Chant's Submittal to GAO, Mar. 23, 1998, 
enclosure at 5.

The remaining 337 hours charged by Chant (163 hours for research and 
174 for protest submittal preparations) we consider to be grossly 
excessive, considering the nature and events of the protest.  The more 
than 8 staff-weeks of time expended in pursuing this relatively simple 
and straightforward protest far exceed what a prudent person familiar 
with the technical issue being protested and with some knowledge of 
the federal procurement system should have reasonably needed to 
identify and research the applicable law and regulations and the 
technical standards and component costs and to respond to the agency's 
arguments.  

Chant claims 163 labor hours of research, including 86 labor hours of 
legal research on procedures, case law and regulations and 77 hours of 
technical research on IEEE-488 components and prices.[1]  We recommend 
that Chant recover for 6 hours of the 86 labor hours Chant claims for 
legal research.  Specifically, Chant may recover for 3 hours of work 
performed by its vice-president on September 26 researching our 
procedures for filing a protest; 2 hours on October 8 researching on 
the Internet a case cited by the Air Force in its dismissal request in 
order to rebut the agency's argument; and 1 hour over December 24 and 
26 researching in our regulations possible responses to the dismissal 
of a protest.  We find these 6 hours reasonable for the limited legal 
research required by the protest issue and our simple, straightforward 
filing requirements.    

The remaining 80 legal research hours are disallowed because Chant did 
not submit any documentation indicating what regulations, cases or 
procedures were reviewed and how this research related to the protest, 
or because the effort on the part of the principals was duplicative 
and excessive.  For example, Chant reports that in September and 
October, its secretary spent 3 work days at different libraries 
researching "GAO and protests."  Id. at 1-2.  Chant never explains 
what the secretary was researching but simply states that she, for 
example, "went to [the] Federal Law Library in Philadelphia" or to the 
"Doylestown Courthouse Law Library . . . ."  Id. at 2.  Chant also 
claims that its vice-president and secretary spent 7 hours reviewing 
information she had found in her library searches.  Again, Chant 
provides no specifics on what was reviewed but states only that 
"nothing was relevant."  Id.  We recommend that none of these claimed 
labor hours be reimbursed.  

Similarly, Chant claims almost 20 hours researching our case law and 
regulations on the Internet "reading everything about GAO . . . ."  
Id. at 1.  Yet, again, Chant does not specifically indicate what it 
was researching, noting only, for example, that on September 25 it 
"[b]egan searching internet sites" and that on September 27, it was 
"[b]ack on [the] internet reading everything about GAO . . . ."  Id.  
In only one instance does Chant specifically state that it was 
researching a case cited by the Air Force.  While Chant claims its 
vice-president spent 6 hours on the Internet researching this case, we 
find 6 hours excessive and allow, as noted above, 2 hours for this 
research.       

Chant also claims approximately 20 hours of work contacting personnel 
in other agencies, such as the Small Business Administration and the 
Internal Revenue Service, for information concerning our regulations.  
Because Chant has not shown the relevance of these contacts, we 
recommend that it not be reimbursed for these costs.  

We do recommend that Chant recover costs for a total of 11 of the 77 
labor hours it claims for researching IEEE-488 components.  
Specifically, we recommend that Chant recover for 6 hours its 
vice-president and 1 hour its president and secretary each spent over 
November 13, 14, and 21 obtaining information--availability, models, 
prices--on IEEE-488 printers and other components in response to an 
agency request.  While Chant claims 39 hours for this work for its 3 
employees, we find 39 hours excessive and the work duplicative.  
Similarly, Chant's claim for reimbursement for more than 20 hours for 
research work performed on December 20 and 23 is excessive.  
Specifically, during our December 19 telephone conference, we 
requested that Chant submit an estimate of the cost difference between 
its proposed electronic console with all components meeting the 
IEEE-488 interface requirement and what it would have offered if the 
solicitation had provided that only inter-component communications 
must meet the IEEE-488 standard.  As noted above, Chant claims a total 
of more than 20 hours for this effort; yet its response to our 
Office--which was less than 1 page in length--includes a specific 
price for only one component.  Under these circumstances, we find that 
Chant may recover for only 2 hours that its vice-president spent and 1 
hour that its president spent on December 20 and 23 obtaining price 
information on IEEE-488 components in response to the request from our 
Office.  

Chant claims 174 hours for preparing its various submissions to our 
Office, including its protest and responses to the agency's dismissal 
request, report and supplemental report, as well as preparing for and 
participating in a conference call with all the parties.  We recommend 
that Chant recover the costs incurred for 70 of these hours, including 
42 hours for its vice-president, 18 hours for its president and 10 
hours for its secretary. 

Specifically, we recommend that Chant recover for 4 hours on September 
28 and 4 hours on October 1 its vice-president spent drafting and 
finalizing its protest and for 1 hour Chant's secretary spent typing 
the protest on October 1.  We recommend that Chant also recover for 1 
hour its vice-president spent discussing procedures with our Office 
and reading the Air Force's dismissal request on October 7; for 2 
hours its vice-president spent on October 11 drafting and finalizing 
its response to the dismissal request; and for 1 hour the secretary 
spent typing and proofing the response.  Chant may also recover for 1 
hour its vice-president spent in conversation with GAO personnel on 
November 7, for 6 hours its vice-president and 4 hours its president 
spent reading the agency report and outlining Chant's response on 
November 18, 19, and 20 and for 8 hours its vice-president, 4 hours 
its president and 3 hours its secretary spent drafting and finalizing 
Chant's response from November 22 through 25.  The protester may also 
recover for 10 hours its vice-president spent, 7 hours its president 
spent and 4 hours its secretary spent reading the Air Force's 
supplemental report, drafting a response and finalizing, typing and 
proofing its response from December 5 through December 10.  The 
protester may recover for 4 hours of its vice-president's time and 2 
hours of its president's time preparing for and participating in the 
December 19 conference call concerning the protest.  Chant may also 
recover for 1 hour its vice-president spent preparing a revised cost 
estimate and for 1 hour its secretary spent typing and faxing its cost 
information to our Office on December 23.  Finally, Chant may recover 
for 1 hour its vice-president spent and 1 hour its president spent on 
December 26 drafting a letter opposing the corrective action proposed 
by the agency.  

The remaining 104 of the 174 hours claimed for reading, drafting and 
finalizing submissions are disallowed because, again, the effort on 
the part of the principals is duplicative and/or excessive.  For 
example, Chant claims that its 3 employees spent 58 hours reading and 
responding to the agency's response to the protester's comments on the 
initial agency report.  Our records show that the agency's response 
was five pages in length, including essentially a three-point rebuttal 
and five-paragraph contracting officer's statement.  In spite of 
Chant's own position that the Air Force's response basically restated 
the arguments in the initial report, Chant claims that it required 
more than 1 staff week to read and respond to this five-page 
submission.  In our view, these hours are excessive and more than a 
prudent person would incur.  Similarly, Chant claims more than 30 
hours reading the agency's initial report--which consisted primarily 
of five pages plus a three-page contracting officer's statement.  We 
view these hours as both excessive and duplicative and have, as noted 
above, recommended that only a portion of them be reimbursed.

In sum, we recommend that the Air Force reimburse Chant a total of 
$6,802[2] for the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, consisting 
of $3,912 in direct labor costs ($2,746 for 56 direct labor hours for 
its vice-president, $1,021 for 20 direct labor hours for its 
president, and $145 for 11 direct labor hours for its secretary) plus 
$1,205 in overhead expenses, $1,653 in general and administrative 
costs, and $32 in mailing expenses.    

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For purposes of this analysis, we have categorized the hours 
claimed in light of the activities identified by Chant in its 
day-by-day breakdown.

2. In calculating amounts for recommended reimbursement, we have 
rounded amounts to the nearest dollar.