TITLE:	Research and Transport Planning and Services, Inc.--Costs
BNUMBER:	   B-290122.2
DATE:		   July 25, 2002
**********************************************************************
TRS Research and Transport Planning and Services, Inc.--Costs, B-290122.2,
July 25, 2002

 [Select for PDF file]



Decision


Matter of:   TRS Research and Transport Planning and Services, Inc.--Costs

File:            B-290122.2

Date:              July 25, 2002

Robert Fryling, Esq., Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley, for the protester.
Lynne Georges, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's corrective action was not unduly delayed where taken prior to
agency report due date, as extended; accordingly, GAO will not recommend
that protester recover the costs of filing and pursuing its protest.

DECISION

TRS Research and Transport Planning and Services, Inc. request that we
recommend that they be reimbursed the costs that they incurred in filing and
pursuing a protest challenging the award of contracts to Global Intermodal
Systems, Inc. and Sea Box, Inc. under solicitation No. SPO56002QHM04, issued
by the Defense Supply Center--Philadelphia for cargo containers.

We deny the request.

The agency report responding to the underlying protest was due on April 15,
2002.  On the due date, the agency notified our Office that it would not be
filing a report due to impending settlement of the case.  Our Office agreed
to extend the report due date 1 week in the hope that the parties would
succeed in settling the matter in that time.  On April 19 the agency indeed
notified our Office that the parties had agreed on corrective action, and on
April 22, we dismissed the protest as academic.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. ï¿½ 21.8(e) (2002), we may
recommend that a protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing a
protest where the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in
response to the protest.  We will make such a recommendation, however, only
where the agency unduly delayed
taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  CSL
Birmingham Assocs; IRS Partners-Birmingham--Entitlement to Costs,
B-251931.4, B-251931.5,
Aug. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD ï¿½ 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.  DuraMed Enters.,
Inc.--Costs, B-271793.2, Oct. 4, 1996,
96-2 CPD ï¿½ 135 at 2.

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
will not recommend reimbursement of protest costs.  HSQ Tech.--Costs,
B-276050.2, June 25, 1997, 97-1 CPD ï¿½ 228 at 2.  We consider corrective
action taken by the report due date to be prompt even where, as here, the
report due date has been extended, because in such circumstances the
protester has not been put to the time and expense of filing comments in
response to such a report.[1]   DuraMed Enters., Inc.--Costs, supra, at 2.
As a result, the purpose of section 21.8(e) of our regulations--to encourage
agencies to take corrective action in response to meritorious protests
before protesters have expended additional unnecessary time and resources
pursuing their claims--has been served.

The request for a recommendation that the agency reimburse TRS Research and
Transport Planning and Services, Inc. for their protest costs is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel




-------------------------

[1] This is true even assuming that, as the protester claims was the case
here, the protester was not notified of the extension.