TITLE:  CAMS, Inc.--Costs, B-292546.2, March 22, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-292546.2
DATE:  March 22, 2004
**********************************************************************
CAMS, Inc.--Costs, B-292546.2, March 22, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   CAMS, Inc.--Costs
    
File:            B-292546.2
    
Date:              March 22, 2004
    
Timothy W. Knudsen, for the protester.
Edward C. Hintz, Esq., and Richard Ferguson, Esq., Defense Logistics
Agency, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
GAO recommends that the protester be reimbursed its cost of filing and
pursuing its protest but not the cost incurred pursuing its protest cost
claim at agency and GAO.
DECISION
    
CAMS, Inc. requests that our Office recommend the amount it should be
allowed to recover from the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC) for
filing and pursuing its protest in CAMS, Inc., B-292546, Oct. 14, 2003,
2003 CPD P: 191. In that decision, we sustained the protest because the
agency improperly accepted a quotation that failed to comply with a
material inspection and acceptance requirement, and recommended, among
other things, that *the agency reimburse CAMS the reasonable costs of
filing and pursuing the protest, including attorney*s fees.*
    

   We recommend that CAMS be reimbursed $3,946.30.
    
On October 27, 2003, CAMS submitted a claim for $4,673.18 to DSCC as the
costs for filing and pursuing the protest and its claim for submitting and
pursuing its claim for the costs recommended in the decision sustaining
CAMS*s protest.  After DSCC offered and CAMS rejected a lesser amount to
settle the claim, DSCC requested certain additional documentation as a
predicate to reimbursing CAMS*s claim.  CAMS provided the requested
information to the agency and filed this claim with our Office.  In an
attempt to settle the claim, the parties agreed to engage in an alternate
dispute resolution (ADR) process, which did not result in settlement of
the claim.  At that time, the agency stated that it believed the total
allowable costs in CAMS*s claim were $3,946.30.  The agency then submitted
its report on the claim, in which DSCC stated that it has no objection to
reimbursing CAMS its claimed costs related to pursuing the protest, which
total $3,946.30, but objects to reimbursing for any additional costs
associated with submitting and pursuing its claim.
    
CAMS*s claim now totals $6,608.61.  This claim includes CAMS*s costs for
filing and pursuing the protest, pursuing the claim at the agency, and
pursuing the claim at our Office (including participating in the ADR
conference). 
    
Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to object to the
reasonableness of the agency*s determination that CAMS should be
reimbursed $3,946.30 for its total claimed costs of filing and pursuing
its protest.  However, we do not recommend that CAMS be reimbursed for the
costs of pursuing its claim at the agency, because those costs are not
associated with proceedings before our Office.  See SKJ & Assocs.--Costs,
B-291533.3, July 24, 2003, 2003 CPD P: 130 at 4.  We also deny CAMS*s
costs for pursuing this claim before our Office.  Our Bid Protest
Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S: 21.6(f)(2) (2003), provide that we may recommend
that a protester be reimbursed the costs of pursuing its claim before our
Office.  Since we recommend that CAMS be reimbursed the amount the agency
determined is due, however, we find no basis to recommend that CAMS be
reimbursed for the costs of pursuing the claim at our Office.
    
Accordingly, we recommend that CAMS be reimbursed $3,946.30.
     
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel