Croman Corp. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15617
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Croman sued the Forest Service in the Court of Federal Claims alleging irrational and unlawful evaluations of helicopter service proposals under the 2011 Solicitation.
- The 2011 Solicitation split into two sets of performance specs for Type I (CLINs 1–15) and Type II (CLINs 16–34) helicopters for large fire support.
- The Forest Service initially planned 34 line items but canceled CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34 due to budget constraints, proposing 30 total line items.
- A Technical Evaluation Team reduced the evaluation universe and used a computerized Optimization Model (OM) to generate best-value recommendations.
- After protests and corrective action, the Forest Service re-evaluated the 15 CLINs at issue using the OM with the same weighting and ultimately awarded contracts to Siller, Columbia, and Firehawk.
- Croman contested both the initial cancellation and the corrective-action award decisions, leading to a bid protest and this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Forest Service had a rational basis to cancel CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34 | Croman argues budgetary concerns were pretextual and the cancellation was irrational | Forest Service acted within budget constraints and good-faith discretion | Yes, rational basis supported the cancellation |
| Whether the tradeoff analysis complied with FAR 15.308 and supported the award decisions | Croman claims the SSA failed to disclose relative strengths and tradeoffs | OM and Attachments 4 and 7 provide adequate tradeoff documentation and SSA review | Yes, proper tradeoff analysis supported the awards |
| Whether Croman was prejudiced by any error in the tradeoff analysis | Croman contends errors harmed its competitive standing | Rational basis and documented OM analysis show no prejudice | Not addressed for prejudice; affirmed on rational-basis/adequacy of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (de novo review of bid protests; no deference to agency findings in some contexts)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary and capricious standard; agency discretion in best-value)
- Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (arbitrary and capricious review of procurement decisions)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (highly deferential standard in bid protests; discretion to procurement officials)
- Prineville Sawmill Co., Inc. v. United States, 859 F.2d 905 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (guidelines for evaluating agency decision-making; factors like bad faith and rational basis)
- Keco Indus., Inc. v. United States, 492 F.2d 1200 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (relevant procurement decision factors; discretion of officials)