BNUMBER:  B-276050.2 
DATE:  June 25, 1997
TITLE: HSQ Technology--Request for Costs, B-276050.2, June 25, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:HSQ Technology--Request for Costs

File:     B-276050.2

Date:June 25, 1997

Paul H. Sanderford, Esq., Pratt & Sanderford, for the protester.
Larry Beall, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 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 recover protest costs where the agency 
promptly took corrective action in response to a protest prior to the 
due date for the agency report.  

DECISION

HSQ Technology requests that our Office recommend payment by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers of HSQ's costs, including attorneys' fees, of 
filing and pursuing its protest that the specifications in 
solicitation No. DACW01-97-R-0010 were unduly restrictive of 
competition.  

We deny the request.

HSQ filed its protest in our Office on January 24, 1997.  By letter 
dated February 25, the day before the agency's administrative protest 
report was due, the Corps notified our Office that it had taken 
corrective action.  Specifically, on February 20, the Corps amended 
the solicitation in order to alleviate the concerns raised by the 
protester and effectively increased the potential competition.  Since 
the Corps was granting the relief requested by HSQ, that is, modifying 
the challenged restrictive specifications, on February 28, we 
dismissed HSQ's protest as academic.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(e) (1997), if the 
contracting agency decides to take corrective action in response to a 
protest prior to our issuing a decision on the merits, we may 
recommend that the agency pay the protester its reasonable costs of 
filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees.  However, 
we will make such a recommendation only where the agency unduly 
delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious 
protest.  CSL Birmingham Assocs.; IRS Partners--Birmingham--Entitlemen
t to Costs, B-251931.4; B-251931.5, Aug. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  82 at 3.  
A protester is not entitled to protest costs where, under the facts 
and circumstances of a given case, the agency has taken reasonably 
prompt corrective action.  Id.

In general, if an agency takes corrective action in response to a 
protest by the due date of its protest report, we consider such action 
to be prompt and decline to recommend reimbursement of protest costs.  
See, e.g., PLX, Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-251575.2, Mar. 10, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  224 at 2-3.  Here, the agency took corrective action 5 days 
before the due date for its report and notified us 1 day before the 
due date.  We view such action, taken early in the protest process, as 
precisely the kind of prompt reaction to a protest that our Regulation 
is designed to encourage.  Corrective action taken on or before the 
agency report due date is not unduly delayed and provides no basis for 
the recovery of protest costs.  DuraMed Enters., Inc.--Request for 
Costs, B-271793.2, Oct. 4, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  135 at 2.
 
HSQ's request for costs is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States