Ajanta Consulting LLC (FA865020R4120)

B-419123.6 May 05, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ajanta Consulting, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA865020R4120, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide service support for the Air Force Research Laboratory's 711th Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Joint Base San Antonio, and other locations. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Ajanta Consulting, LLC--Costs File:  B-419123.6 Date:  May 5, 2021 Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb LLP, for the protester. Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, and Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs is denied where the agency did not unduly delay implementing the proposed corrective action. DECISION Ajanta Consulting, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, requests that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA865020R4120, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide service support for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s 711th Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Joint Base San Antonio, and other locations.  We deny the request. BACKGROUND Ajanta filed its protest with our Office on September 11, 2020, contesting the Air Force’s award of multiple IDIQ contracts under the solicitation.[1]  Ajanta also challenged the agency’s evaluation that its proposal was ineligible for award.  Specifically, Ajanta’s protest challenged the agency’s evaluation of several technical identification subfactors under the technical experience factor as unreasonable and inconsistent with solicitation terms.[2]  Subsequently, our Office received protests from three other unsuccessful offerors challenging the Air Force’s evaluation and award decisions under this solicitation, each of which was docketed separately.  On September 22, prior to the agency report due date, the Air Force informed our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to the protests.  Req. for Dismissal at 1.  The agency represented that it would reevaluate all offerors’ technical volumes for technical identifications 4b, 4c and 5h-5l.  Id.  The agency also stated that, upon conclusion of its reevaluation, it would award additional contracts to any offeror whose proposal receives a minimum score of 2,675 points, in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  Id.  In addition, the agency stated that it would take any other corrective action that it deemed appropriate.  On October 7, our Office dismissed the protests because the Air Force’s corrective action rendered the protests academic.  See, e.g., Ajanta Consulting, LLC, B‑419123, Oct. 7, 2020 (unpublished decision).[3]   DISCUSSION Ajanta argues that it should be reimbursed the costs of pursuing its protest because the Air Force, in its view, has unreasonably delayed implementing the proposed corrective actions that caused our Office to dismiss its protest as academic.  Ajanta complains that the length of time the Air Force has taken to implement its corrective action--approximately four months at the time Ajanta filed this request--constitutes undue delay, and argues that its protest grounds were clearly meritorious.  The Air Force disagrees that it has taken too long to implement the corrective action.  The Air Force also disagrees with Ajanta’s assertion that the protest was clearly meritorious. When a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, our Office may recommend that the agency pay the protester its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e).  However, our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate a recommendation for the reimbursement of protest costs in every case where an agency takes corrective action, but rather only where an agency unduly delays taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.  Information Ventures, Inc.--Costs, B-294580.2 et al., Dec. 6, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 244 at 2.  When an agency takes corrective action on or before the due date set for receipt of the agency report, our Office views such action as prompt and will not recommend the reimbursement of costs.  Innovative Techs., Inc.--Costs, B-415810.3, Mar. 12, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 107 at 2.