Allied Technology Group, Inc. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- DOJ issued a draft RFQ on August 13, 2008 for an automated recruiting and staffing system used to list DOJ jobs and track applications.
- Final RFQ required highlighting conflicting terms as exceptions and warned such exceptions could adversely affect evaluation.
- Allied and Monster submitted bids; Allied proposed ~$7M with six exceptions; Monster bid ~$3.2M and certified Section 508 compliance with minor exceptions.
- Contracting Officer awarded the contract to Monster on August 2, 2009, based on best value and perceived significant price/merit differences favoring Monster.
- Allied protested to GAO; GAO denied; Allied then sued in the Court of Federal Claims, which granted judgment for appellees; Allied appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed.
- Key issues centered on whether discussions were required before disqualification for exceptions and whether Monster’s Section 508 compliance and related certifications supported the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discussions were required before disqualifying Allied for exceptions. | Allied contends RFQ required discussions when exceptions are taken. | DOJ had discretion to decide on discussions; RFQ language permits disqualification for unacceptable exceptions without discussions. | Discussions were not required to disqualify Allied. |
| Whether Monster could be considered despite Section 508 exceptions. | Monster's exceptions to Section 508 show noncompliance that invalidates award. | Monster certified general compliance with Site 508; minor exceptions do not trigger automatic disqualification. | Contracting Officer had a rational basis to accept Monster's proposal despite minor Section 508 exceptions. |
| Whether the government acted arbitrarily in the best value determination. | Allied argues the best value analysis was flawed and biased toward Monster. | Monster offered best value given higher Allied price and only marginal technical advantage. | Not addressed on the present record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr. v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (contract must be interpreted to give reasonable meaning to all parts)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency may rely on certifications of compliance unless significant countervailing evidence exists)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (nonconforming proposals should be rejected when they fail to meet material terms)
- S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (limits appellate substitution of grounds for agency action)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (preaward ambiguity waiver and diligent protest timing)
- Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, 213 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (ambiguity and standard of review in bid protests)