Alpine Companies, Inc. v. United States
21-1541
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 10, 2021Background
- HUD issued a best-value solicitation (Sec‑Held mortgage loan‑servicing) with five non‑price factors (Technical Approach, Quality Control, Management Plan, Past Performance, Socioeconomic Participation); non‑price factors were "significantly more important than cost or price."
- Four offerors submitted proposals; Alpine’s proposal was misfiled and not evaluated until months after ISN’s evaluation and the agency conducted a responsibility check on ISN.
- The TEP rated Alpine Unacceptable under Technical Approach (13 weaknesses, 2 significant weaknesses, 16 deficiencies), rendering Alpine ineligible for award; ISN was the only acceptable offeror and received the award.
- Alpine alleged Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations based on rumors conveyed by its CEO; the CO investigated by interviewing HUD personnel, found no leak of source‑selection information, and initially concluded no PIA violation.
- The Court ordered a remand to document the PIA review and concurrence; the agency supplemented the record and the CO’s supervisor concurred that no PIA violation or impact occurred.
- The Court reviewed the administrative record, rejected Alpine’s challenges to the PIA investigation and the technical evaluations, and denied the protest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of PIA investigation | CO’s inquiry was cursory, should have interviewed non‑HUD parties and used Alpine’s filings; concurrence was improper. | CO reasonably interviewed those with access to source‑selection info, investigation reached a dead‑end when Alpine declined to provide more details; supervisor properly reviewed CO records. | Investigation and concurrence were reasonable; no PIA violation or procurement impact shown. |
| Reasonableness of Alpine’s technical evaluation | TEP unreasonably labeled Alpine Unacceptable; weaknesses/deficiencies were unsupported and unequal compared to ISN. | TEP documented specific PWS mismatches and impacts; evaluations were reasoned and distinct across proposals. | Alpine’s Technical Approach rating was reasonable; failures to meet PWS timelines were material deficiencies making Alpine ineligible. |
| Unequal/biased evaluation of ISN vs Alpine | ISN received more favorable treatment for substantively similar defects. | Evaluations addressed different proposal content and risks; not ‘‘substantively indistinguishable.’’ | No unequal treatment shown; plaintiff’s comparisons were mere disagreement with judgment. |
| Past performance rating for ISN | ISN’s submission of non‑relevant references should not yield a Neutral rating; TEP misapplied solicitation/FAR. | FAR/solicitation permit Neutral rating where offeror has no relevant past performance; TEP followed solicitation. | TEP reasonably assigned Neutral for ISN’s non‑relevant past performance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standards for judicial review of agency procurement decisions)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (agency action reviewed under arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Office Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (prejudice requires showing a substantial chance of award but for the error)
- Glenn Defense Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (errors must be prejudicial to warrant relief)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (but‑for standard for establishing prejudice)