____________________ DENIED: May 16, 1994 ____________________ GSBCA 12270-C(12099-P) ATLANTIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent. Furqan Ahmad, Project Manager of Atlantic Microsystems, Inc., Herndon, VA, appearing for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, and Joseph M. Goldstein, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, and Captain C. Wesley Bridges, II, Maxwell AFB, AL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman)[foot #] 1, HENDLEY, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On March 8, 1993, Atlantic Microsystems, Inc., the protester, filed a request to recover $6,187.50 as its alleged costs of "bid and proposal preparation" in the underlying procurement. In an opinion issued on February 17, 1994 (granting the protester its requested costs of filing and pursuing the underlying protest), the Board permitted the parties to supplement the factual record and to address this remaining element of protester's requested recovery. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Board Judge Vincent A. LaBella, who was on the panel in this case, died on April 11, 1994. A random selection from the remaining judges resulted in his replacement by Board Judge Daniels. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- As supplemented, the factual record fails to support protester's recovery in any amount. Accordingly, the Board denies the protester's request. Findings of Fact 1. In light of a joint request of the parties, the Board dismissed the protest underlying this request for reimbursement. Atlantic Microsystems, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12099-P, 1992 BPD 394 (Dec. 10, 1992). Thereafter, pursuant to statute, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988), the protester sought recovery of its costs. In an opinion issued February 17, 1994, the Board granted the portion of the protester's request for recovery of its costs of filing and pursuing the protest; regarding the request for alleged costs of bid and proposal preparation, the Board permitted the parties to supplement the factual record and to submit legal discussion. Atlantic Microsystems, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12770-C(12099-P), 94-2 BCA 26,691, 1994 BPD 36. 2. In its request to recover $6,187.50, as its costs of bid and proposal preparation, the protester's president states in a sworn declaration that the protester "charges clients $150 per hour for its services"; the protester seeks compensation for its in-house efforts (said to total 41.25 hours between two individuals) at this rate. Protester's Motion (Mar. 8, 1993), Exhibit B. 3. In response to the Board opinion issued February 17, a project manager of the protester submitted a signed letter. The letter discusses the protester's support for its requested $6,187.50 in "bid and proposal preparation" costs. There is neither supporting information nor factually reliable information, e.g., material presented in a declaration, affidavit, or otherwise-sworn vehicle. The explanation states: The hourly billing rates provided for the record in this case are actually Atlantic's internal cost rates, which are used for internal accounting purposes. These rates are not the final price charged to Atlantic's customers. Rather these are the actual cost to Atlantic (hourly Billing Rate FOR ATLANTIC) that are incurred due to the labor intensive work that is put into the bid and proposal preparation process by experienced technical specialists and contract specialists within the company. And hence these are the burdened labor rates for all practical purposes. Protester's Letter (Feb. 28, 1994). 4. The same project manager added the following detail in a subsequent letter, also signed, but not rising to the level of reliable, credible, factual information: Atlantic Microsystems, Inc. has requested the reimbursement of its total cost of burdened labor only, which is a measure of its bid and proposal preparation cost. The basis for calculation of burdened labor rates and hence the total cost, to Atlantic, of bid and proposal preparation for the [underlying] bid is as follows: Calculation basis for Burdened Labor Rate: ------------------------------------ Number of people who worked on the Air Force bid: 3 Wages per year per person: $100,000 Total Overhead Cost: 3 x 100,000 = $300,000 Total hours of work in a year: 2000 hours Burdened Labor Rate: $300,000/2000=$150 per hour ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- Total number of hours spent on the [underlying] bid: 41.25 hours Total Bid and Proposal Preparation Cost to be reimbursed: 41.25 hrs. x $150 = $6,187.50. Protester's Letter (Mar. 28, 1994). 5. The protester's argument and calculations are introduced to support the precise amount of the requested reimbursement. However, the information submitted by the protester is not credible; rather, it appears to be fabricated simply to support the requested recovery. No basis exists to rely on the asserted $100,000 burdened salaries of the three employees. The $150 burdened hourly labor rate is derived utilizing 2,000 hours of work per year for all three employees taken together, although the 41.5 hours are hours expended by individuals, who purportedly would each work 2,000 hours per year. The explanations found in the letters do not persuasively explain the apparent inconsistency between the original request, which states that the protester charges clients $150 for its services, and the later request for $150 per hour as the burdened individual rate. 6. The record contains no basis for calculating the actual cost to the protester of preparing its response (including subsequent dialogue with the agency) to the agency's notice of intent to make an award under a schedule contact. Discussion Relying upon statute, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988), the protester seeks to recover $6,187.50 as its costs of "bid and proposal preparation." ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- The Board may assume, without deciding, that the protester is an appropriate party to recover its costs of "bid and proposal preparation." The record supports no recovery for the protester. The protester was afforded the opportunity to supplement the record in response to a Board opinion. The information submitted does nothing to establish the credibility or accuracy of the protester's position and request. Lacking a basis in the record to formulate recoverable costs, the Board denies the request. Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA 8943-C(8845-P), 89-3 BCA 22,110 at 111,214, 1989 BPD 219 at 4 ("Without a basis to determine the reasonableness of the hourly rate claimed by the president, we deny recovery with respect to all amounts for his efforts."). Decision The protester's request for recovery of its costs of bid and proposal costs is DENIED. ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge Board Judge