Cmi Management, Inc v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 276
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- CMI protested its exclusion from USCIS FOSS competitive range after proposal evaluation; TEC/BEC evaluations produced four factor reports; CO issued competitive-range decision excluding CMI; GAO denied CMI protest; CMI filed suit under Tucker Act seeking judgment on the administrative record.
- CMI’s proposal contained technical and business volumes, including Mentor-Protégé submittals; several other offerors submitted proposals; competitive range comprised USIS and FCi; CMI’s proposal had weaknesses across factors.
- The agency found CMI’s Operational Approach and Staffing Acceptable, Management Approach Good, and Relevant Corporate Experience Acceptable; Mentor-Protégé Subfactor Two rated Marginal due to late approval letter and incomplete documentation.
- CMI argued rating inaccuracies, misapplication of RMT terminology, and that other offerors received unwarranted strengths; CMI claimed disparate treatment and prejudice from exclusion from discussions.
- Agency’s rational basis for ratings and competitive-range decision; no required pre-competition discussions with non-range offerors; no prejudicial error found.
- Court concluded the agency’s evaluation was rational and not arbitrary or unlawful; CMI’s protest was denied; government’s cross-motion granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion from the competitive range was rational | CMI argues ratings were biased/incorrect | USCIS reasonably rated CMI as Acceptable/Not competitive | Yes; rational basis supported exclusion |
| Whether Subfactor One weaknesses were justified | CMI claims weaknesses were misapplied or unfounded | Weaknesses supported by record evidence | Yes; weaknesses rationally supported by TEC findings |
| Whether Mentor-Protégé evaluation was properly applied | Late OSDBU letter and incomplete agreement merited higher rating | Timing and documentation met evaluation criteria | Yes; Marginal rating upheld |
| Whether there was disparate treatment among offerors | FCi/USIS strengths not mirrored for CMI; possible bias | Evaluations focused on each proposal’s merits under criteria | No prejudicial disparate treatment established |
| Whether lack of discussions prejudiced CMI | Discussions could have improved CMI’s standing | No obligation to discuss non-range offerors; prejudice not shown | No prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (pre-award protest framework; prejudice requirement for relief)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (heavy burden to show lack of rational basis in procurement)
- BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States, 102 F.3d 677 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (disparate treatment and evaluation transparency concerns)
- JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 52 F.6th 650 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (scope of review for procurement decisions; reasonableness of process)
- Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (arbitrary or capricious review standard; reasoned decisionmaking)