Archura LLC v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 487
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Archura filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging DHS FirstSource II award decisions.
- Archura was disqualified from consideration for an IDIQ contract because its Sample Delivery Order Pricing Matrix omitted brand/model information for one item, violating the solicitation's requirement to complete every cell.
- The solicitation provided that price would be a factor and that proposals must be complete; it stated that failure to conform could result in rejection without discussions.
- The government determined Archura’s total evaluated price could not be calculated due to missing information, and Archura was excluded from award while other offerors with incomplete or unclear data sometimes received awards.
- Archura argued the omission was minor and that DHS should have allowed correction, citing latent ambiguity in the solicitation and unequal treatment.
- The court granted the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Archura’s cross-motion, finding no prejudice because Archura’s price was substantially higher than awardees' prices and Archura had no substantial chance of award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DHS abuse its discretion in excluding Archura for missing brand/model data? | Archura | DHS | No prejudice; no error established |
| Was Archura prejudiced given its price was far above awardees' prices? | Archura | DHS | Archura lacked substantial chance of award; no prejudice |
| Was the price-evaluation language latent or patently ambiguous requiring clarification before award? | Archura | DHS | Solicitation not ambiguous; Archura waived objection |
| Did Archura's equal-treatment concerns about other bidders with similar omissions have any impact on the outcome? | Archura | DHS | Unequal treatment did not prejudice Archura; not entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (two-step bid protest standard and prejudice requirement)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standing and jurisdictional 'substantial chance' standard)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (waiver and latent/patent ambiguity distinctions for solicitation terms)
- Interwest Constr. v. Brown, 29 F.3d 611 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (ambiguity analysis and duty to seek clarification)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (contract ambiguity and interpretation standards)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (highly deferential standard in bid protests)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (judicial deference in procurement decisions)
- Allied Tech. Grp. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 16 (2010) (no prejudice despite higher price tradeoffs in best value)
- Elec. Data Sys., LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 416 (2010) (prejudice not shown where price differential dwarfs merit)