A protest that challenges the source selection decision on a negotiated, best value, procurement is not easy to win. Numerous decisions of the GAO and the United States Court of Federal Claims have held that procurement officials are entitled to substantial deference. In a recent decision by the Court of Federal Claims, however, the Court stated that “such deference is not unlimited.” See Firstline Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States dated September 27, 2011. While the protest did not involve a construction project, and dealt with a Department of Homeland Security contract for airport screening services, the Court’s decision is certainly applicable to procurements for construction.

The Plaintiff argued that the Source Selection Evaluation Board (“SSEB”) failed to conduct a proper best-value analysis and actually awarded the contract on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. That, of course, was improper because the government advertised that there would be a best-value tradeoff that would weigh all of the evaluation factors and price. While a number of protesters have alleged that the Government ignored the advertised evaluation factors and simply found a way to award to the lowest price, it is refreshing to know that, in this case, the Court agreed that the facts supported the protester’s contention.

The Court’s decision is quite lengthy (79 pages) and we will not discuss it in detail, but a copy is linked to this article and we recommend that you give it a quick review. In essence, the Court found that that the best-value analysis performed by the SSEB was both irrational and inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP. In criticizing the agency, the Court stated that the SSEB failed to account for the significant differences between the competing proposals with respect to technical quality; and, that in selecting a higher-priced, technically superior proposal for award, an agency must explain and document why the technical merits of that proposal warrant its higher price. The Court stated:

[T]he agency is compelled by the FAR to document its
reasons for choosing the higher-priced offer. Conclusory
statements, devoid of any substantive content, have been
held to fall short of this requirement, threatening to turn
the tradeoff process into an empty exercise. Indeed, apart
from the regulations, generalized statements that fail to
reveal the agency’s tradeoff calculus deprive this court of
any basis upon which to review the award decisions.

The finding regarding lack of documentations is particularly welcome because we see so many cases where the GAO and the Court accept very sparse documentation without putting the agency to the test of fully explaining, and supporting, its source selection rationale.

The decision in this case is noteworthy because it holds out the hope that where the facts support a protester’s allegations, the Court will not simply defer to the discretion of the agency. The Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) in this case did not perform an independent evaluation and assessment of competing proposals which, of course, explains why there was no documentation of any such assessment. The Court found this to be particularly egregious and emphasized that the “SSA’s documentation is limited to her adoption of the SSEB report and her otherwise unsupported statement that the intervenor’s proposal represents the best value to the government.” The more that federal agencies are required to document and fully explain the basis for their procurement decisions, the more likely it will be that procurement decisions will be made fairly and impartially.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

Share on Facebook

Related posts:

1. Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Administrative Hearings...
2. U.S. Presses Case Against Berger Group Over Alleged Overbilling A U.S. contractor managing more than $1 billion in reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan faces federal criminal and civil investigations of claims that it overcharged the government for work, according to federal court documents. Share on Facebook...
3. Handyman, Court Might Have Rejected Donning/Doffing “Administrator Interpretation” Without Citing It. A Subtle Dig? We previously posted about the U.S. Labor Department’s Administrator Interpretation saying that unionized employers cannot exclude time spent donning and doffing certain protective equipment from compensable “hours worked,” even if an applicable union contract or practice treats the time as unpaid.  On August 2, 2010, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that unionized [...]...
4. US Stock Futures Rise As Jobless Claims Fall, BP (NYSE: BP) Eyed (source: iStock Analysis) US stock-index futures climbed on Thursday after a government release showed that initial claims fell 10,000 to 453,000 in the latest week.[More...] (source: iStock Analysis) – Share on Twitter – Share on Facebook – RSS and RSS Feed on Feedzilla.com Share on Facebook...
5. Handyman Insurance, What is the Central Contractor Registration (CCR)? Central Contractor Registration (CCR) is the primary registrant database for the U.S. Federal Government. CCR collects, validates, stores, and disseminates data in support of agency acquisition missions, including Federal agency contract and assistance awards. Please note that the term “assistance awards” includes grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of federal assistance. Whether applying for assistance [...]...
6. Contractors News, Decision Against Novartis Has Implications Beyond Pharmaceutical Industry In a major decision with possible relevance outside of the pharmaceutical industry, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) gave strong deference to a U.S. Labor Department legal brief and overruled a lower court in deciding that Novartis’s pharmaceutical sales reps were not exempt from overtime as outside salespersons or [...]...
7. Voluntary Arbitration Program Guide Voluntary Arbitration Program Guide...
8. Accounting Jobs and Careers in Lexington, KY Many highly credentialed audit and accounting practices are located in Kentucky. Such companies regularly hire accounting professionals to be able to deliver services in many accounting and audit areas.  These accounting professionals are also required to help managers and decision makers make decisions with respect to planning, budgeting, resource allocation and the like. Kentucky Account [...]...
9. A handyman contractor is required to include his license number on all of his advertising A handyman contractor is required to include his license number on all of his advertising...
10. Construction Groups Sue NY DOT Over Pay Freeze Four New York State trade associations representing heavy construction contractors are suing the state over Gov. David Paterson’s announcement in March that the New York Dept. of Transportation would halt payments on all statewide capital construction projects not funded through federal stimulus dollars. NYSDOT photo As many as 500 bridge and highway projects in New [...]...
11. Handyman Caution Called For In Documenting Compliance Efforts Handyman Caution Called For In Documenting Compliance Efforts...
12. Handyman, amendment stating that employees may be classified as exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage An amendment stating that employees may be classified as exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage, overtime, and timekeeping requirements based upon the amount of their compensation alone.  Even though the FLSA directs the U.S. Labor Department to establish the parameters for certain exemptions, historically the agency has taken the position that it is not currently authorized [...]...
13. Handyman Compares South Dakota Auto Insurance Policies Any South Dakota resident who operates a motor vehicle is required by law to demonstrate financial responsibility. The majority of motorists in the Mount Rushmore State choose to meet this legal requirement by purchasing automobile coverage that includes bodily injury and property damage liability. However, not all insurance policies are created equal. The cost of [...]...
14. Chicago Museum Sues Arap Over Addition’s Engineering Ove Arup & Partners says it is “incredulous” over a lawsuit by the Art Institute of Chicago accusing the company of errors on the museum’s 264,000-sq-ft Modern Wing. Filed in federal district court in Chicago, the lawsuit claims the multidisciplinary engineer failed to discharge its obligations during design and construction of the wing, which opened [...]...
15. Handyman, Seventh Circuit Clarifies Overtime Damages For Misclassified Employees Courts and litigants have struggled over how to figure overtime due to an employee who was misclassified as exempt and who was paid a fixed salary for his or her hours worked.  The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires that non-exempt employees be paid 1.5 times their regular hourly rates for hours worked over 40 [...]...