Ajanta Consulting LLC (N00030-19-R-4444)

B-419523,B-419523.2 Apr 02, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ajanta Consulting, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to PacArctic, LLC, a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00030-19-R-4444, issued by the Department of the Navy for financial management support services. The protester argues that the agency made a flawed best-value tradeoff decision. The protest is denied. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Ajanta Consulting LLC File:  B-419523; B-419523.2 Date:  April 2, 2021 Mark G. Jackson, Esq., and Stowell B. Holcomb, Esq., Jackson Holcomb, LLP, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for PacArctic, LLC, the intervenor. Maria Perez Rivera, Esq., and Kristopher Fischer, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is flawed is denied where the record shows the decision was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION   Ajanta Consulting, LLC, a small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract to PacArctic, LLC, a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00030-19-R-4444, issued by the Department of the Navy for financial management support services.  The protester argues that the agency made a flawed best-value tradeoff decision.  The protest is denied. BACKGROUND On May 30, 2019, the agency issued the RFP to procure United States and United Kingdom financial management support services and analysis to remain compliant with the Chief Financial Officer Act.  The agency sought proposals from participants in the Small Business Administration’s section 8(a) program and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to be performed over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, RFP, amend. 5 at 16. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  past performance, corporate experience, customer relations management, technical approach, and price.  Id. at 29.  Past performance was the most important factor, and the remaining non-price factors were equally important; all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id.  The importance of price would increase as the difference in the evaluated quality of proposals decreased, or when price was so significantly high as to diminish the value of a proposal’s technical superiority.  Id.  Total prices would be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.  Id.  The agency received seven proposals, including those from Ajanta and PacArctic.  Both proposals were included in the competitive range.[1]  A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) completed its final evaluation with the following relevant results:   Ajanta PacArctic Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Corporate Experience Blue/Outstanding Blue/Outstanding Customer Relations Management Purple/Good Blue/Outstanding Technical Approach Purple/Good Blue/Outstanding Price $15,947,959 $21,846,480   AR, exh. 14, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) at 60.  In making her selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) noted that she had reviewed the proposals, the SSEB’s detailed evaluation report, and the post-business clearance memorandum; made a comparative assessment of the proposals; and selected PacArctic as the firm representing the best value to the government.  Id. at 59.  Her six-page source selection decision is comprised of a detailed individual and comparative analysis of each competitive range proposal under each evaluation factor, as well as her tradeoff decision as between Ajanta and PacArctic. Under both the past performance and corporate experience factors, the SSA described and concurred with the SSEB’s findings and concluded that neither proposal provided a clear advantage and they were essentially equal.  Id. at 61-62. Under the customer relations management factor, the SSA explained that Ajanta demonstrated a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements; its high-level approach to interacting with the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) met the requirements and reduced the need for government oversight; and it had a thorough level of detail concerning interacting with the Office of Financial Operations (FMO).  AR, exh.