Dell Federal Systems, L.P. v. United States, 906 F.3d 982

The Army solicited a large (estimated $5 billion) COTS computer-hardware IDIQ contract using a lowest-price-technically-acceptable (LPTA) approach; proposals required completion of Excel Equipment Submission and Business Process forms.
Fifty-eight proposals were received; nine were evaluated as technically acceptable and nine awards were made (including Dell, Blue Tech, Red River).
Multiple unsuccessful offerors protested at GAO, alleging spreadsheet ambiguities and that the Army improperly omitted pre-award discussions required by DFARS for high-value procurements.
The Army initiated corrective action: reopen the competition, conduct discussions with all remaining offerors (including previously excluded ones), request final revised proposals, and issue new awards; it also released anonymized total proposed prices to level the field.
Dell, Blue Tech, and others sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to enjoin the corrective action; the Claims Court enjoined it, applying a “narrowly targeted” standard and finding the Army’s corrective action overbroad.
On appeal the Federal Circuit reversed, holding the Claims Court applied the wrong (heightened) standard and that the Army’s corrective action was rationally related to identified defects (spreadsheet ambiguities and failure to hold discussions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate legal standard to review corrective action	Claims Court: corrective action must be "narrowly targeted" to the defect	Government: APA "rational basis" review governs; highly deferential	Federal Circuit: use APA rational-basis standard; Claims Court erred by applying "narrowly targeted" test
Was reopening procurement and holding post-award discussions reasonable?	Appellees: discussions should have been pre-award; post-award reopening is overbroad	Army/Gov't: failure to hold discussions (DFARS) and spreadsheet ambiguities made reopening reasonable	Held reasonable: reopening and discussions are rationally related to defects, especially alleged DFARS violation
Could clarifications (limited exchanges) have remedied defects instead?	Appellees: clarifications and reevaluation were a narrower, adequate remedy	Gov't: clarifications cannot cure material proposal defects; discussions permit proposal revision	Held: errors were material (equipment identity); clarifications insufficient; discussions appropriate
Was release of anonymized pricing unfair/impermissible?	Appellees: disclosure harms original awardees and is anti-competitive post-award	Gov't: disclosure leveled playing field after debriefings and protests; reasonable remedial step	Held: release of anonymized totals was not barred on these facts and was a reasonable measure to mitigate competitive advantage

Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (four-factor test for injunctive relief in bid protests)
Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 829 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Court of Federal Claims legal determinations)
Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rational-basis review: agency must provide a coherent, reasonable explanation)
Raytheon Co. v. United States, 809 F.3d 590 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (upholding reopening where agency grounds rationally justified reopening)
Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of corrective action review)
Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (setting aside procurement action if arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law)
Systems Application & Techs., Inc. v. United States, 691 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (standing and injury-in-fact issues in post-award corrective-action context)
Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (agency strictly bound by solicitation terms)
SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) (ordinary meaning of "shall" in regulation)