Blue Water Thinking, LLC v. United States
24-1641
Fed. Cl.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Blue Water Thinking, LLC (BWT), a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, bid on a VA contract for Program Support Integration (PSI) but lost the award to GoldPath Communications JV, LLC.
- The procurement was for a firm-fixed-price, indefinite delivery/quantity contract to provide integration and support for the VA's Connected Care technology network.
- The VA's decision was based on a best-value trade-off, weighing technical capability significantly more than past performance, and both above price.
- BWT initially won the contract, but following protests by GoldPath, the VA undertook corrective actions, reopened competition, and ultimately awarded the contract to GoldPath after additional proposal evaluations.
- BWT filed post-award protests, alleging improper evaluations, arbitrary trade-off analysis, flawed Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) waiver use, and breach of implied duty.
- The Court reviewed the protest under the Administrative Procedure Act, assessing whether the agency's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alleged Pre-determination of Awardee | CO pre-selected GoldPath prior to best-value analysis. | No pre-selection; references to "apparent awardee" justified. | No improper pre-selection; analysis was reasonable. |
| OCI Waiver Process | OCI waiver sought before best-value analysis was improper. | Timing complied with FAR and was cautionary, not improper. | Process followed FAR; request was reasonable and timely. |
| Best-Value Trade-off Analysis | Analysis was perfunctory; didn't look behind ratings; arbitrary. | Thorough analysis conducted, supported by record. | Trade-off justified and not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Breach of Implied Duty/Fair Dealing | VA failed to consider BWT's proposal fairly or honestly. | Full and fair evaluation was given to BWT's proposal. | No breach of fair dealing; BWT's proposal carefully considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (sets standard for overturning procurement decisions as arbitrary or capricious)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (addresses prejudice and standard for judgment on the administrative record)
- Glenn Defense Marine (ASIA) PTE, Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (scope of judicial deference in "best value" procurement)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (role of courts in reviewing procurement minutiae)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standing requirement for protests)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (highly deferential review in procurement decisions)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) ("reasonably discerned" agency path standard)
- CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, 67 F.4th 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (standing in bid protests)
- Office Design Group, Inc. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (deference to agency proposal evaluations)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (direct economic interest for bid protest standing)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (deference to agency procurement determinations)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (substantial chance test for prejudice)