BNUMBER:  B-276559.3 
DATE:  July 10, 1997
TITLE: PTI Supply Company--Entitlement to Costs, B-276559.3, July
10, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:PTI Supply Company--Entitlement to Costs

File:     B-276559.3

Date:July 10, 1997

Gregory L. DePuydt for the protester.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

General Accounting Office (GAO) will not recommend payment of protest 
costs where the agency amended the protested request for quotations to 
delete a requirement objected to by the protester prior to the filing 
of the protest at GAO  and, after the protest was subsequently amended 
to object to a new requirement, the agency took responsive corrective 
action the same day.

DECISION

PTI Supply Company requests that our Office recommend that the 
Department of the Army pay its protest costs associated with two 
protests of request for quotations (RFQ) No. DAHA02-97-Q-0026, issued 
on March 3, 1997, through the Federal Acquisition Computer Network 
(FACNET), by the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National 
Guard Bureau, U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer for Arizona, for a 
portable pressure washer.  This simplified acquisition RFQ contained a 
purchase description, which specified a Landa model VHW4-20021A and 
certain salient characteristics.  

We deny the request.

In correspondence to the agency dated March 5, PTI objected to the 
adequacy of the RFQ's purchase description, contending that it was 
written around the features of the specified brand name and exceeded 
the minimum needs of the agency.  On March 6, the agency issued 
Amendment 0001 which revised the purchase description to, among other 
things, require a portable hot water pressure washer that is "UL 
[Underwriters Laboratories] Certified;" the amendment also extended 
the date for receipt of quotations to March 21.  PTI submitted a 
quotation on March 20 for a washer which PTI indicated was not UL 
certified but otherwise met all the agency's minimum requirements; PTI 
stated in its quotation that "UL certification is believed not to be 
an actual minimum agency need."  The agency issued amendment 0002 on 
March 20, which replaced the "UL Certified" requirement with a 
different minimum requirement that the washer "must be wired per NEC 
[National Electrical Code] guidelines;" Amendment 0002 also extended 
the date for receipt of quotations to March 26.  PTI submitted a 
quotation to the agency on March 25 noting that its offered product 
meets all the agency minimum requirements and that "the NEC wiring 
requirement is a fictitious requirement and is under GAO protest."  On 
April 2, the agency informed us that it had issued Amendment 0003 
effective March 25, which deleted as inapplicable the NEC wiring 
requirement. 

Meanwhile, on March 21, PTI protested to our Office the RFQ's 
requirement that the washer be "UL Certified" because the requirement 
allegedly favors the product of the brand name specified in the RFQ.  
PTI amended its protest on March 25 following its receipt of Amendment 
0002, which removed the RFQ requirement that the washer be "UL 
Certified" but which added the new minimum requirement that the washer 
"be wired per NEC guidelines," which the protester contended is 
inapplicable and misleading and should be deleted from the RFQ.  

Our Office dismissed PTI's initial protest as academic on March 31 
because in issuing Amendment 0002 to remove the requirement that the 
washer be "UL Certified," the agency granted the relief requested by 
the protester.  Likewise, on April 3, our Office dismissed PTI's 
amended protest as academic because of the agency corrective action in 
response to the protest.

On April 2, PTI submitted to our Office its request for reimbursement 
of its protest costs, contending that the agency took corrective 
action only as a result of its protests.  We deny PTI's request.

Where a contracting agency takes corrective action in response to a 
protest, our Office may recommend that the agency pay the protester 
the costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(e) 
(1997).  The intention behind implementing this regulation was not to 
award protest costs in every case in which an agency takes corrective 
action, but rather where an agency unduly delays taking corrective 
action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  American Lawn 
Serv., Inc.--Entitlement to Costs, B-271039.2, May 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
228 at 2.  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.  LORS Medical Corp.--Entitlement 
to Costs, B-270269.2, April 2, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  171 at 2.

Here, as described above, on March 20, before PTI had even filed its 
initial     March 21 protest with our Office, the agency, in response 
to the protester's objection to the requirement in its March 20 
quotation, issued an amendment deleting the requirement that the 
washer be "UL Certified."  Thus, there is no entitlement to protest 
costs since the agency's corrective action occurred prior to PTI's 
initial protest and therefore was not in response to it.  See Norfolk 
Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., B-248549; B-248549.2, Aug. 26, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para.  127 at 4.

Moreover, the agency's corrective action in response to PTI's March 25 
amended protest against the requirement that the washer "be wired per 
NEC guidelines" could not have been more prompt, as the agency issued 
Amendment 0003 to delete the offending requirement the very same day 
PTI amended its protest.  Clearly, the record contains no basis for 
concluding that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action; 
rather, the agency's immediate amending of the RFQ to delete the 
requirement objected to by the protester constitutes exactly the type 
of prompt corrective action which we seek in bid protest resolution, 
and which it is not our intent to penalize.  See Southeast Technical 
Servs.--Entitlement to Costs, B-272374.2, March 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  
107 at 4-5.

We deny PTI's request for protest costs.

Comptroller General
of the United States.