Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 1
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- DSI filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging DOL’s award of an AMS contract to Compusearch under GSA Schedule 70, alleging arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful action and abuse of discretion.
- After GAO protests and subsequent corrective action, DOL reevaluated proposals and issued a new award decision reaffirming the Compusearch award; DSI filed an amended complaint and the court held oral argument followed by a bench ruling granting defendant and intervenor judgment on the administrative record.
- The RFQ/RFQ amendments governed evaluation factors, including technical and past performance, and allowed a post-competitive-range reevaluation after DOL’s corrective action.
- DOL’s reevaluation used the same technical evaluation panel (TEP) with a revised framework that excluded two previously considered items and added a new one, in accordance with the corrective action.
- DSI contested the reevaluation, the related tradeoff analysis, and the price reasonableness and IGCE rationales; the court held that the reevaluation and corrective actions were proper and within the agency’s discretion.
- The court ultimately upheld the award decision, denying DSI’s MRAR and preserving the government’s award to Compusearch.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOL’s reevaluation and corrective action were proper | DSI argues reevaluation used improper grounds and failed to justify changes | DOL contends reevaluation supported by new documentation and proper methodology | Yes; reevaluation and corrective action were reasonable and justified |
| Whether DOL complied with discussions requirements under FAR 8.4 | DSI asserts lack of meaningful discussions and failure to address weaknesses | DOL argues FAR 8.4 does not require Part 15 discussions for GSA Schedule procurements | Yes; discussions were proper and not mandated as part of this FAR Subpart 8.4 process |
| Whether DOL properly evaluated past performance and product demonstrations | DSI claims misrating past performance and mis-evaluating product demonstrations | DOL had discretion to assess past performance and demonstrations under RFQ terms | Yes; past performance ratings and product demonstrations were reasonably evaluated |
| Whether price reasonableness and IGCE support the award | DSI challenges IGCE level and price gap as indicative of unreasonable pricing | IGCE reasonable; tradeoff favored Compusearch’s technically superior solution | Yes; price reasonableness and IGCE adequately documented and reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 503 (2011) (court reviews procurement decisions for rational basis; deference to agency discretion)
- DynCorp Int’l LLC v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 528 (2007) (best value procurement; agency discretion in evaluation)
- Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (deference to agency decisions in procurements with best value)
- Allied Tech. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 16 (2010) (FSS acquisitions are not negotiated procurements; Part 15 procedures not automatically applied)
- Sys. Plus Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 206 (2005) (FSS procurement procedures may employ Part 15 guidance when invoked by solicitation)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 160 (2009) (agency must apply stated past performance evaluation criteria; disagreement alone is not arbitrary)