HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadkwt0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL)TSt
OECISION OF THE UNITEO STATES
,~WASH]INGTON. 0. C. 20548
FILE: B-202766.2, B-203351.2 DATE: February 14, 1983
MATTER OF: McQuiston Associates--Request for Reconsidera-
tion of Claim for Proposal Preparation Costs
DIGEST:
1. GAO decision dismissing claim for proposal
preparation costs and denying claim for
costs of pursuing protest does not prejudice
proceedings before board of contract appeals
or a court because the board proceeding
and what GAO considered involve matters
unrelated to the claim in court.
2. Expenses incurred in pursuing bid protests
with GAO are not compensable under Equal
Access to Justice Act.
McQuiston Associates requests that we reconsider our
decision, McQuiston Associates - Claim for Proposal
Preparation Costs, B-202766; 3-203351, August 12, 1982,
82-2 CPD 127, in which we dismissed that firm's claim for
proposal preparation costs in connection with request for
proposals (RFP) Nos. DAAH01-80-R-1299 and DAAH01-81-R-0481
issued by the U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal,
Alabama. We dismissed the claim because McQuiston had not
timely protested the allegedly improper agency action on
which the claim was based. We also held that McQuiston's
costs of pursuing earlier bid protests were not compen-
sable.
McQuiston now contends that we should not have issued
our decision at all because at the time it initially filed
its claim for proposal preparation costs with our Office it
had also filed concurrent actions in a United States
District Court (McQuiston v. Marsh, No. CV 81-3572-WMB,
C.D. Cal.) and the Armed Services Board of Contract
Appeals (ASBCA) (Appeal of McQuiston Associates, ASBCA](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadkwt0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)