TITLE:  Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs, B-294567.2, November 16, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294567.2
DATE:  November 16, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs

   File:            B-294567.2

   Date:              November 16, 2004

   Bruce H. Kleinstein for the protester.

   Scott C. Briles, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the
agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Request for recommendation that agency reimburse protest costs for second
protest of an allegedly inadequate synopsis because agency failed to
implement corrective action proposed in response to first protest, is
denied where agency promptly proposed corrective action in response to
second protest and first protest was not clearly meritorious.

   DECISION

   Information Ventures, Inc. (IVI) requests that we recommend that the
agency reimburse its costs associated with its protest of the Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) posting of a sole-source synopsis for educational and awareness
materials regarding hemochromatosis.

   We deny the request.

   The agency originally issued a notice through its Atlanta, Georgia office,
on MarchA 17, 2004, announcing its intent to issue a purchase order to
Iron Disorders Institute (IDI), for the "purpose of continuing the
establishment of a partnership between IDI and CDC to reach the common
goal of helping create a healthier nation by facilitating IDI's national
iron out-of-balance disorders education, information and training
programs."  IVI Protest, attach. 1.  On March 19, IVI filed a protest in
our Office, alleging that the notice was improper in several respects,
including that it lacked necessary information, and that the requirement
should be set aside for small businesses.  The agency informed our Office
on April 6 that it was taking corrective action by canceling the synopsis
and that it would, rather than conduct an acquisition, meet its
requirement by awarding a grant to IDI.  The protester subsequently
withdrew its protest.  Approximately 4 months later, on August 9, CDC
issued a notice through its Morgantown, West Virginia office announcing
its intent to make a sole-source award to IDI for the same requirement
(this is undisputed by the agency).[1]  IVI again protested to our Office,
alleging that the notice was inadequate.  In response to IVI's protest,
the agency again canceled the solicitation, and we dismissed the protest
as academic.

   IVI requests that we recommend that the agency pay the protest costs
associated with its second protest since that protest was necessary only
because the agency again published a sole-source notice that not only
allegedly was inadequate, but also was contrary to its proposed corrective
action in connection with IVI's first protest.  IVI asserts that the
agency's prompt corrective actions in both instances show its protests had
merit.

   Where a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest,
we may recommend that it reimburse the 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 a protester to expend unnecessary
time and resources to make further use of the protest process in order to
obtain relief.  Georgia Power Co.; Savannah Elec. and Power Co.,
B-289211.5, B-289211.6, May 2, 2002, 2002 CPD P 81 at 5.  We consider a
protest to be clearly meritorious when a reasonable agency inquiry into
the protester's allegations would show that the agency lacked a defensible
legal position, id., that is, that the protest does not involve a close
question.  East Penn Mfg. Co., Inc.--Costs, B-291503.4, Apr. 10, 2003,
2003 CPD P 83 at 3.  The mere fact that an agency decided to take
corrective action does not establish that a statute or regulation has been
violated.  Id.

   The corrective action in response to IVI's second protest was prompt; the
agency advised us that it was taking corrective action on August 26, well
before the agency report due date of SeptemberA 22.  We generally consider
corrective action to be prompt where, as here, proposed by the agency
prior to the due date for its agency report.  Mapp Building Servs.--Costs,
B-289160.2, Mar. 13, 2002, 2002 CPD P 60 at 2. 

   We have also recommended reimbursement of protest costs where an agency
proposes corrective action in response to an initial protest, and a
subsequent protest was necessitated by the agency's failure to implement
the promised corrective

   action.  See Louisiana Clearwater, Inc.--Recon. and Costs, B-283081.4,
B-283081.5, Apr.A 14, 2000, 2000 CPD P 209; Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.--Recon.
and Costs, Ba**275587.5, B-275587.6, Oct. 14, 1997, 97-2 CPD P 102 at 5. 
However, we will recommend reimbursement in these cases only where the
initial protest was clearly meritorious.  Louisiana Clearwater,
Inc.--Recon. and Costs, supra.  This is not the situation here. 

   IVI asserted in its originial protest that the March 17 notice was
deficient for failing to provide the required "accurate description" of
the property or services to be purchased, sufficient to allow a
prospective contractor to make an informed business judgment as to whether
to request a copy of the solicitation.  See Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) SA 5.207(c).  However, the synopsis included the following
description of the services being procured:

   [t]his order will complete phase two update of the IDI website which
includes a resource center that includes an initial physician registry
which is continuously reviewed, evaluated and updated regularly and a
state by state (where available) treatment centers, hospitals, clinical
trials, local support, calendar of events and breaking news, a glossary of
terms, links to resources such as alliances and recommended sites (CDC,
NIH, NLM, etc.) including a link to CDC's online healthcare provider
hemochromatosis training website, down-loadable forms and info sheets for
patients about diet, therapy, genetics, treatment journals and access to
IDI subject matter and links to information regarding activity in the
private sector that supports treatment and management of disorders of
iron.

   This statement of the agency's requirement gave potential offerors a
general idea of the type of services being provided, and we cannot find
that it was inadequate on its face.  Rather, in order for us to reach a
decision as to whether the synopsis was legally sufficient to permit
potential offerors to decide whether to request a copy of the
solicitation, we would need to further develop the record--due to the
agency's corrective action, neither its report, nor the protester's
comments, was filed--and would need to conduct substantial further legal
analysis.  This being the case, there is no basis for finding that IVI's
initial protest was clearly meritorious; it follows that there is no basis
for recommending reimbursement of IVI's protest costs.  Baine
Clark--Costs, B-290675.3, Sept. 23, 2002, 2002 CPD P 166 at 3.

   The request is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The record establishes that CDC's Morgantown contracting office was
unaware of the earlier actions taken by the Atlanta contracting office. 
IVI's Request for Costs atA 2; CDC's Letter of Oct. 13, 2004, at 1.