BNUMBER:  B-277572.8           
DATE:  September 9, 1998
TITLE: HG Properties A, L.P.--Costs, B-277572.8, September 9, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:HG Properties A, L.P.--Costs

File:B-277572.8          
        
Date:September 9, 1998 

Thomas W. Rochford, TRS Design & Consulting Services, for the 
protester. 
Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. 
Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Claim for costs of filing and pursuing a protest at the General 
Accounting Office is denied where the protester failed to file with 
the contracting agency an adequately detailed claim within 60 working 
days after the protester received a copy of the decision awarding 
protest costs.

DECISION

HG Properties A, L.P. requests that we recommend the amount it should 
be reimbursed by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for 
filing and pursuing its protest in HG Properties A, L.P., B-277572 et 
al., Oct. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  123.  

In that decision, we sustained HG's protest of the award of a lease 
for office space in Libby, Montana, because the Forest Service 
unreasonably had determined that the awardee's proposed layout 
satisfied all solicitation requirements and was entitled to a high 
evaluation score, where the layout was inconsistent with the 
solicitation requirement that the computer room be located away from 
areas housing microwave equipment and radio transmitters.  Id. at 5.  
We dismissed or denied numerous other protest allegations, including 
other challenges to the agency's evaluation of offers.  We also 
recommended that HG be reimbursed for its costs of filing and pursuing 
the protest, "limited to the contention as to which we sustain[ed] the 
protest."  Id. at 6-7.

On December 19, 1997, HG submitted a certified claim to the Forest 
Service within 60 days of receipt of our decision seeking 
reimbursement of $78,674.71 for its costs of filing and pursuing the 
protest.  The only supporting information provided with the claim was 
a list of individuals and firms, which the protester asserted provided 
work on the protest, and a total dollar amount requested for each 
individual and firm.  It did not identify the work performed by these 
individuals or firms or the timeframe within which the work was 
performed.

On December 22, the Forest Service responded to HG's claim by 
requesting that HG provide a breakdown of the costs requested, 
including the amount and purposes of the time expended by each 
individual and identifying how the claimed costs related to the issue 
upon which we sustained the protest.  On January 27, 1998, after not 
receiving any response from HG, the Forest Service denied the claim, 
noting that HG had failed to submit an adequately detailed claim to 
the agency within 60 days of receipt of the decision as required by 
our Bid Protest Regulations.  

On February 6, HG responded to the Forest Service by providing 
information identifying for each individual the total hourly effort, 
hourly rate, and generally describing on a monthly basis the work done 
by each individual; HG now claimed $76,796.50.[1]  HG also stated that 
it did not segregate its protest costs to the issue upon which we 
sustained the protest, noting that "the scope of the protest decision 
(USFS's improper evaluation of offers) was not separable from the 
overall protest work.  It is impossible to pick one or two issues from 
any other issue in terms of the time and cost associated with the 
protest."  The Forest Service did not reconsider its denial of HG's 
claim, and HG requested that we determine the amount it should be 
reimbursed.  The agency objects to HG's claim for costs, asserting 
that the protester failed to file a timely, adequately supported 
claim, as required, and failed to segregate costs to the issue upon 
which we recommended reimbursement of the protest costs.

Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.8(f)(1) (1998), provide 
that when we find that an agency should reimburse a protester for its 
appropriate costs:

     [t]he protester shall file its claim for costs, detailing and 
     certifying the time expended and costs incurred, with the 
     contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of GAO's 
     recommendation that the agency pay the protester its costs.  
     Failure to file the claim within that time may result in 
     forfeiture of the protester's right to recover its costs.

Consistent with the intent of our Regulations to have protest matters 
resolved efficiently and quickly, the 60-day timeframe for filing 
claims with the contracting agency was specifically designed to avoid 
the piecemeal presentation of claims and to prevent unwarranted delays 
in resolving such claims.  That timeframe affords protesters ample 
opportunity to submit adequately substantiated, certified claims.   
Test Sys. Assocs., Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-244007.7, May 3, 1993, 
93-1 CPD  para.  351 at 4.  Failure to initially file an adequately 
supported claim in a timely manner results in forfeiture of a 
protester's right to recover costs, irrespective of whether the 
parties may have continued to negotiate after the 60-day period 
expired.  Wind Gap Knitwear, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-251411.2, 
B-251413.2, Aug. 30, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  94 at 3.  Although we recognize 
that the requirement for documentation may sometimes entail certain 
practical difficulties, the claim for reimbursement of costs must, at 
a minimum, identify the amount claimed for each individual expense, 
the purpose for which that expense was incurred, and how the expense 
relates to the protest.  W.S. Spotswood & Sons, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 
B-236713.3, July 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  50 at 3.

Here, the record shows that HG failed to file a legally sufficient 
cost claim within the time required.  The claim initially submitted to 
the Forest Service did not identify the purposes for which claimed 
expenses were incurred or how the expenses related to the issue for 
which we recommended the reimbursement of HG's protest costs.  Despite 
the Forest Service's request, HG failed to supplement its defective 
claim by providing the required claim information within the 60-day 
period, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.8(f)(1).  Nor has HG offered any explanation justifying its failure 
to timely file an adequately detailed claim.

In addition, HG's cost claim improperly requested reimbursement for 
costs that were incurred in pursuit of protest allegations and issues 
for which we did not recommend reimbursement.  As noted above, our 
recommendation that HG be  reimbursed for the costs of filing and 
pursuing its protest was limited to the issue on which we sustained 
its protest; that is, we recommended that the Forest Service reimburse 
HG's protest costs to the extent that they were incurred in pursuing 
the issue that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's 
proposed layout vis-ï¿½-vis the requirement that the computer room be 
located away from areas housing microwave equipment and radio 
transmitters.  HG admits that its claim did not attempt to segregate 
these costs, and the information provided by HG is not sufficient to 
allow the segregation of costs by protest issues or allegations.  
While HG now argues that the reimbursement of its protest costs should 
not be limited to the one issue on which we sustained its protest, 
this is in effect a request for reconsideration of the decision that 
recommended the reimbursement of its protest costs, which we will not 
consider because our Bid Protest Regulations require that requests for 
reconsideration of a protest decision must be filed within 10 days 
after the basis for reconsideration is known or should have been 
known.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.14(b).

The claim for costs is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. HG did not explain the discrepancy between the amount originally 
requested and that later documented.