D & S Consultants, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 23
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- DSCI filed a bid protest against the VA's evaluation of its proposal for the TJ Transformation Twenty-One program, alleging arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful evaluation and discussions.
- The VA issued the RFP (No. VA-118-10RP-0052) in July 2010 seeking a five-year IDIQ IT-services solution with up to 15 awards, including SDVOSB and VOSB goals, and a best‑value framework across five evaluation criteria.
- DSCI submitted its proposal August 2010; the VA conducted an initial evaluation using an IGCE (Independent Government Cost Estimate) and identified unrealistically low labor rates as a key risk, issuing seven Information for Negotiation (IFN) items to DSCI.
- DSCI was initially in the competitive range (22 offerors); after interim evaluations the VA found DSCI’s technical and management proposals deficient due to unrealistically low rates and related concerns, excluding it from the final competitive range in March 2011.
- DSCI protested to GAO (denied); VA produced an extensive administrative record; the court held cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record and ultimately granted the VA’s motion, denying DSCl’s request for judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IGCE was adequately documented and rational | DSCI contends the IGCE rests on irrational assumptions and lacks sufficient back-up. | VA maintains the IGCE is rational, contemporaneous documentation is sufficient, and the pool of contractors was reasonable. | IGCE adequately documented; rational. |
| Whether DVA properly evaluated DSCI's management proposal | DSCI argues misapplication of the management sub-factor and incorrect consideration of labor-hour allocation. | DVA properly evaluated management techniques and controls under the solicitation, including hours allocation within price realism. | Evaluation consistent with the solicitation; rational and proper. |
| Whether DVA reasonably considered the allocation of hours between prime and subcontractors | DSCI asserts its hour allocation was rationally related to recruitment and retention but not properly weighed. | DVA’s price realism analysis encompassed hour allocation and was within its discretion; no new criterion was added. | Rational linkage between hour allocation and workforce recruitment; properly considered. |
| Whether DVA's discussions were meaningful and not misleading or unequal | DSCI claims discussions failed to adequately apprise it of concerns about labor-hour allocation and SCA mapping; alleges misleading or unequal discussions. | Discussions followed FAR 15.306(d)(3) with specific IFNs, guiding DSCl to address concerns; no unequal or misleading conduct. | Discussions meaningful and compliant; no material misleadings. |
| Whether DVA’s overall evaluation and final decision were consistent with the RFP and applicable law | DSCI alleges overall irrational evaluation and potential CICA violations. | Agency exercised its discretion under best-value procedures; no legal flaw in the final decision. | Agency's evaluation and decision supported; plaintiff's challenges fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary-action review requires rational basis or regulatory violation)
- Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 F.3d 634 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (clear, pre-stated evaluation factors required)
- WorldTravelService v. United States, 49 F.3d 431 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (meaningfulness of discussions and tailoring to the offeror)
- Nutech Laundry & Textile, Inc. v. United States, 56 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (IGCE documentation sufficiency and need for basis of the estimate)
- Process Control Techs. v. United States, 53 F.3d 71 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (detailed IGCE may be extensive yet not exhaustive)
- CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (post-hoc rationalizations and extraneous explanations scrutinized)