TITLE:  Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs, , December 6, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294580.2, B-294586.2, B-294617.2, B-294632.2, B-294706.2, B-294707.2, B-294741.2, B-294760.2, B-294762.2
DATE:  December 6, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs

   File:            B-294580.2, B-294586.2, B-294617.2, B-294632.2,
B-294706.2, B-294707.2, B-294741.2, B-294760.2, B-294762.2

   Date: December 6, 2004

   Bruce H. Kleinstein, Esq., for the protester.

   Doris Gibson, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Request for recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs in a series
of protests is denied where, in each case, agency took prompt corrective
action that rendered protests academic, and where the record, in any
event, provides no support for protester's allegation that agency
corrective action indicates a pattern of improper agency conduct of
procurements.

   DECISION

   Information Ventures, Inc., requests that we recommend that the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) reimburse its costs associated with
nine protests it recently filed.  HHS canceled the challenged procurements
soon after the protests were filed; consequently, the protests were
dismissed as academic.  Each protest primarily challenged the sufficiency
of a published synopsis of a proposed sole-source contract award and a
determination by HHS that only one supplier could meet its needs;
Information Ventures also generally contended that the agency improperly
limited competition and failed to assess whether the requirements should
have been set aside for small business concerns.  The protester now argues
that in light of the agency's cancellation of these nine procurements, and
several other proposed sole-source procurements also protested by the
firm, our Office should recommend reimbursement of Information Ventures'
costs related to its pursuit of these nine protests, because, according to
Information Ventures, the post-protest cancellations demonstrate a pattern
of improper procurement actions due to a lack of adequate agency-wide
policies regarding sole-source streamlined acquisitions.

   We deny the request for costs.

   HHS reports that in response to each protest, it promptly canceled the
procurements in order to allow it time to reassess its needs and the best
method to meet those needs, including further consideration of whether
additional sources were available to compete for the work.[1]  HHS states,
however, that it did not make a determination that the protests were
meritorious.  To the extent that Information Ventures contends that HHS
lacks adequate acquisition policies, HHS asserts that it would be more
appropriate for the firm to present its concerns to agency procurement
officials rather than for it to pursue such concerns by filing numerous
bid protests of individual procurements.  In this regard, the agency
recently confirmed that it will review Information Ventures' concerns and
that the firm may provide further input for that review.  The agency
emphasizes, however, that its corrective action was not in response to an
agency determination that the protests were meritorious, and that, in any
event, the corrective action was taken without undue delay.

   Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, our Office may recommend
that protest costs be reimbursed where we find that an agency's action
violated a procurement statute or regulation.  31 U.S.C. S 3554(c)(1)
(2000).  Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S 21.8(e) (2004), further
provide that where an agency takes corrective action in response to a
protest, our Office may recommend that the agency pay the protester its
costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  Our Regulations do not
contemplate a recommendation for the reimbursement of protest costs in
every case in which an agency takes corrective action, but rather only
where an agency unduly delays taking corrective action in the face of a
clearly meritorious protest.  American Lawn Serv., Inc.--Entitlement to
Costs, B-271039.2, May 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD P 228 at 2.  Here, there is no
question that the agency's corrective action was prompt, as cancellation
occurred within several days of when each protest was filed.[2] 
Accordingly, there is no basis to recommend recovery of costs.

   In requesting reimbursement of its protest costs, the protester asks us to
create an exception to our existing rule regarding reimbursement in cases
where the agency takes prompt corrective action.  The protester argues
that, since it filed numerous protests, and since the agency canceled many
of the procurements, our Office should infer a "recurrent pattern" of
improper issuance of sole-source acquisitions, warranting recovery of
protest costs.  In this regard, our rule limiting recovery of protest
costs to those cases where agency corrective action is unduly delayed was
intended not as an award to prevailing protesters or as a penalty to
agencies, but rather to encourage agencies to take prompt action where
warranted, and thereby save protesters from expending additional costs in
pursuing their protests.  See Wall Comonoy Corp.--Entitlement to Costs,
B-257183.3, Nov. 16, 1994, 94-2 CPD P 189 at 2.  That is precisely what
HHS did here, and we see no reason to consider abandoning that principle
to allow recovery despite the fact that corrective action was promptly
taken.  Moreover, the protester's argument derives from its assumption
that the series of corrective action decisions by HHS indicates an
underlying procurement impropriety.  We do not have a basis to draw that
same conclusion based on the record here.  Information Ventures has not
established, and the record otherwise does not show, that any of the nine
protests in fact was meritorious; the agency maintains that the corrective
action was not based on any determination that the protests had merit;
and, as noted above, because the corrective action was taken so early in
development of the protests, no agency responses on the merits were
prepared.   Without a basis to find the protests clearly meritorious, we
have no ground to recommend reimbursement of costs.

   The request is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel     

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

   [1] The agency reports that it did not know of the protester's apparent
interest in any of the work until it received notice of the protests.  HHS
adds that although Information Ventures filed 19 protests within a 2-month
period against HHS proposed sole-source procurements, the firm failed to
submit statements of interest or capability to the agency for
consideration as an alternate source for any of the work.  The agency also
reports that in instances where the agency has taken corrective action and
converted sole-source acquisitions to competitive procurements,
Information Ventures has not participated in the competitions.

   [2] Because the agency's action was prompt, we need not reach the second
prong of our test--whether the protests were clearly meritorious.  As
noted below, however, there is insufficient support in the record for a
determination that any of the nine protests in question were clearly
meritorious.  Each protest was dismissed early in the development of the
record and prior to preparation of an agency response on the merits of
each.