Crassociates, Inc. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 698
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- CRA challenges the Army's second award of a contract to Spectrum to provide community health care in the National Capital Area after this court previously set aside the first award for procurement flaws.
- Spectrum had begun transition work under a court-enjoined contract, and after a stop-work order the Army reopened limited discussions to negotiate a new contract under the same solicitation.
- CRA and Spectrum submitted revised proposals; the SSEB issued consensus evaluations and the SSA awarded Spectrum on May 11, 2011.
- The Army conducted a new best-value evaluation and price realism review, with Spectrum favored on key technical factors; CRA received lower or unknown ratings.
- CRA protested to the court, seeking judgment on the administrative record; Spectrum and the Army intervened, and the court denied CRA’s motion while granting the Army’s cross-motions.
- The court ultimately concluded the SSA’s award to Spectrum was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful and denied CRA’s challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRA waived OCI and price-advantage objections by failing to protest pre-award. | CRA contends Spectrum gained an OCI and price advantage from prior performance. | Army and Spectrum argue CRA waived these objections by not raising them before award. | CRA waived these objections; pre-award protests required. |
| Whether the second award complied with the RFP evaluation scheme. | CRA asserts departure from the RFP’s independent evaluation requirement. | Defendant contends supplementary consensus evaluations were permissible in the reprocurement. | Not arbitrary or prejudicial; supplemental process allowed. |
| Whether discussions were meaningful and non-discriminatory. | CRA asserts unequal discussions; Spectrum allegedly discussed more weaknesses. | FAR allows tailored discussions; not every weakness must be discussed for every offeror. | Discussions were meaningful and not unlawfully biased. |
| Whether the Army properly evaluated Spectrum’s professional compensation under FAR 52.222-46. | Spectrum’s compensation plan should have been scrutinized under the professional services clause. | Army conducted a comprehensive review showing Spectrum’s compensation was reasonable. | Evaluation complied with the clause; not arbitrary. |
| Whether the best-value determination was rational and supported by the record. | CRA argues multiple errors tainted the best-value decision. | SSA’s best-value determination was rational and adequately documented. | Best-value decision sustained; not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (precludes de novo-style review; limits prejudicial inquiry in bid protests)
- Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (waiver of pre-award protest rights to challenge solicitation defects)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (prejudice required and demonstrated by substantial chance of award but-for error)
- ARINC Eng’g Servs., LLC v. United States, 77 F.1st? 196 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (deference to agency evaluations; need for rational process)
- Fort Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (meaningful discussions and evaluation standards in post-protest procurements)