A-T Solutions, Inc. v. United States
122 Fed. Cl. 170
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- DTRA issued an RFP (IDIQ) for counter-CBRNE training support with three sample task orders and a 60‑day transition CLIN (CLIN 0001); mission capability > past performance > cost.
- Offerors included incumbent Cubic and A-T Solutions (A-TS). Government provided FTE estimates but did not require offerors to follow them.
- Cubic proposed substantially fewer FTEs than the Government estimate and proposed $0 transition costs, asserting transition work would be absorbed by indirect/overhead staff; Cubic described detailed execution and staffing plans.
- A-TS proposed higher staffing and higher total cost. SSEB/SSAC rated both firms similarly (Management: Good; Technical: Outstanding); cost realism reviews found both proposals realistic; SSA awarded to Cubic based on lower cost and perceived efficiencies.
- A-TS protested to GAO; DTRA took corrective action, reevaluated, made limited changes, and again awarded to Cubic; A-TS filed bid protest in Court of Federal Claims challenging staffing, cost realism, transition feasibility, and unequal treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency irrationally accepted Cubic’s low staffing in technical evaluation | A-TS: record lacks analysis showing Cubic could perform with far fewer FTEs; SSA didn’t acknowledge sharp discrepancy | Gov: Cubic disclosed and explained lower staffing; RFP allowed deviations; proposal detailed execution to support fewer hours | Court: Agency reasonably evaluated and documented Cubic’s staffing and rationale; upheld evaluation |
| Whether cost realism required upward adjustment of Cubic’s price for low staffing | A-TS: agency should have adjusted costs upward to reflect insufficient staffing (i.e., add hours) | Gov: cost realism is discretionary; Cubic’s staffing and costs were consistent with its technical approach; contractor may absorb costs (no-cost transition) | Court: No basis to force adjustment; DTRA’s cost realism determination was rational |
| Whether Cubic’s transition plan and $0 transition cost were technically infeasible or internally inconsistent | A-TS: transition shows conflicting assignments (direct vs indirect staff), incumbency means double‑booking, so infeasible; $0 cost contradicts technical staffing | Gov: Cubic repeatedly represented transition would be no‑cost (absorbed by indirects/overhead) and provided a detailed transition plan; no requirement to price transition a certain way | Court: Transition plan and $0 transition cost were consistent and reasonable; agency reasonably accepted risk placed on contractor |
| Whether agency treated A-TS unequally in assigning strengths/weaknesses (including post-corrective-action rewording) | A-TS: DTRA applied standards unevenly, reworded/created weaknesses for A-TS only, miscredited Cubic for travel/nonrefundable‑ticket practice and international logistics | Gov: reevaluation covered all offerors; differences stemmed from actual proposal content—A-TS had genuine inconsistencies; Cubic’s international logistics claim was supported | Court: No disparate treatment; differences were attributable to proposals, not unequal standards; weakness rewording was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for overturning procurement decisions)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (review under Administrative Procedure Act)
- Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (arbitrary and capricious standard examples)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (arbitrary and capricious framework)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (U.S.) (agency action upheld if path can be reasonably discerned)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to agency procurement expertise)
- M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289 (D.C. Cir.) (agency discretion in procurement)
- AshBritt, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 344 (Fed. Cl.) (court will not rescore technical proposals)
- Adams & Associates v. United States, 741 F.3d 102 (Fed. Cir.) (APA standard in bid protests)
- OMV Med. Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.) (cost realism need not be impeccably rigorous)
- CTA Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 684 (Fed. Cl.) (cost realism review deferential to agency)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir.) (deference on technical judgments)
- NCL Logistics Co. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 596 (Fed. Cl.) (equal treatment principle; non‑similarly situated offerors may be treated differently)