TITLE:  Williamson County Ambulance Service, Inc.ââCosts, B-293811.4, September 16, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293811.4
DATE:  September 16, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Williamson County Ambulance Service, Inc.a**a**Costs

   File:            B-293811.4

   Date:              September 16, 2004

   Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester.

   Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, Esq.,
Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Government Accountability Office declines to recommend that protester be
reimbursed its protest costs where the agency promptly took corrective
action in response to a supplemental protest.

   DECISION

   Williamson County Ambulance Service, Inc. requests that we recommend that
it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest of the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) award of a contract to Mercy Regional
Ambulance Service, Inc., under solicitation No. V15-04-0026, for ambulance
services for the VA Medical Center, Marion, Illinois, and surrounding
community based outpatient clinics.

   We deny the request.

   On March 10, 2004, Williamson filed an initial protest with our Office
challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals and the subsequent source
selection decision.  Williamson also asserted that Mercy's proposal should
have been rejected as technically unacceptable, although it did not
explain why this was so.  On April 9, the agency submitted a report in
which it disputed the initial protest arguments and otherwise defended the
agency's source selection decision.

   In a filing with our Office on April 19, Williamson both furnished
comments on the agency report and raised additional protest grounds. 
Among the new protest allegations raised by the April 19 submission were
Williamson's assertion that Mercy's proposal was unacceptable because
Williamson had failed to timely acknowledge a material solicitation
amendment, and because the proposal had been submitted by facsimile in
violation of a solicitation prohibition on facsimile submissions.  On
April 21, Williamson filed a second supplemental protest raising
additional protest issues.

   By notice of April 21, our Office requested the agency to submit a report
on the new protest issues apparent in Williamson's comments/supplemental
protest and in Williamson's second supplemental protest.  This
supplemental report was due on May 3.

   By letter dated April 29, VA notified our Office that, in lieu of filing a
report on the supplemental protests, it would take corrective action,
including reviewing the agency's requirements, amending the solicitation
as necessary, conducting discussions with offerors in the competitive
range, and requesting revised proposals.  The agency indicated that its
corrective action was not taken in response to Williamson's initial
protest, but instead was taken in response to the supplemental protests. 
The agency specifically noted that Williamson had first raised the issues
concerning acknowledgment of a solicitation amendment and facsimile
transmission of proposals in its supplemental protests.  Agency Corrective
Action Letter at 2.  In view of the agency's corrective action, our Office
dismissed all of Williamson's protests as academic.

   On May 17, Williamson filed this request for costs.  Williamson notes that
because the agency defended against the initial protest, the protester
incurred the costs of preparing and submitting comments on the agency
report.  Williamson asserts that a reasonable inquiry into Williamson's
initial protest would have shown that the agency lacked a defensible legal
position.

   Our Office may recommend that an agency reimburse a protester its protest
costs where, based on the circumstances of the case, we determine that the
agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly
meritorious protest, thereby causing the protester to expend unnecessary
time and resources to make further use of the protest process in order to
obtain relief.  4 C.F.R. SA 21.8(e) (2004); Shindong-A Express Tour Co.,
Ltd.a**a**Costs, B-292459.3, Mar. 25, 2004, 2004 CPD PA 75 at 5.  Our rule
is intended to prevent inordinate delay in investigating the merits of a
protest and taking corrective action once an error is evident, so that a
protester will not incur unnecessary effort and expense in pursuing its
remedies before our Office. Professional Landscape Mgmt. Servs.,
Inc.--Costs, B-287728.2, Nov. 2, 2001, 2001 CPD P 180 at 5. 

   Here, the agency's notice of corrective action stated that the agency was
taking corrective action in response to supplemental protest issues, and
specifically identified two supplemental protest issuesa**a**failure to
acknowledge a material amendment and violation of the prohibition against
facsimile submissions.  Williamson first raised these protest grounds on
AprilA 19, and within 10 days the agency announced its corrective action,
well before May 3, the due date for the agency report on the supplemental
protests.  Since the agency did not submit a report on these supplemental
protest issues, the protester did not expend unnecessary time and
resources to make further use of the protest process in order to obtain
relief on these issues.  See J.A. Jones Mgmt. Servs., Inc.a**a**Costs,
Ba**284909.4, July 31, 2000, 2000 CPD PA 123 at 4 n.2 (corrective action
taken before due date for agency report on supplemental protest is
prompt). 

   Although Williamson argues that the agency should have been aware of these
defects simply by examining Mercy's proposal in response to the initial
protest, the promptness of an agency's actions is measured relative to the
time when the protester identifies the issue that prompts the corrective
action.  Where, as here, a protester introduces different issues in
multiple submissions to our Office, the promptness of the agency's
corrective action is not measured from the protester's initial protest, if
that protest did not identify the issue on which the agency based its
corrective action.  QuanTech, Inc.a**a**Costs, B-291226.3, Mar. 17, 2003,
2003 CPD PA 62 atA 3; J.A. Jones Mgmt. Servs., Inc.a**a**Costs, supra.

   We deny the request for costs.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel