Dyncorp International, LLC v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 537
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- DynCorp, the incumbent, challenged the Department of State’s award of an $10 billion single-award WASS Aviation Support Services contract to AAR; only DynCorp and AAR bid.
- The solicitation prioritized Management & Administration (Factor 1); a central dispute concerned responsibility for a new Management Information System (MIS) post-transition.
- After an initial GAO protest and agency corrective action, DynCorp was reinstated into the competitive range, submitted multiple proposal revisions and numerous discussion responses, but the agency ultimately rated DynCorp “Unacceptable” overall based largely on deficiencies in its MIS Sub‑Factor (Sub‑Factor 1‑B).
- DynCorp alleged (1) arbitrary/capricious evaluation of MIS proposals, (2) disparate treatment in AAR’s staffing evaluation, (3) flawed price reasonableness analysis, and (4) improper denial of disqualification for alleged Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violations arising from a former DynCorp employee’s contacts with AAR.
- The Contracting Officer (CO) concluded AAR gained no competitive advantage from the former employee’s disclosures and found DynCorp’s proposal deficient for failing to address federal IT/data migration requirements; the court applied deferential APA review to the CO’s determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. MIS evaluation (Sub‑Factor 1‑B) | DynCorp: agency mis-evaluated and penalized DynCorp for relying on language that allocated MIS responsibility to the IT Associate Contractor; evaluation arbitrary. | State: discussions identified weaknesses; CO reasonably found DynCorp’s MIS approach deficient and risky. | Court: CO’s evaluation rational and supported; DynCorp’s MIS shortcomings justified the rating. |
| 2. AAR staffing evaluation / disparate treatment | DynCorp: AAR should have been disqualified or downgraded for cross-referencing/impermissible staffing approaches. | State/AAR: evaluation complied with solicitation; no improper cross‑referencing or disparate treatment. | Court: evaluation of AAR staffing was rational and not contrary to solicitation. |
| 3. Price reasonableness | DynCorp: agency’s price analysis was arbitrary, especially given DynCorp’s lower price. | State: performed reasonable price analysis; best‑value tradeoff may favor higher technical rating despite higher price. | Court: price reasonableness analysis rational; best‑value discretion supports award to AAR. |
| 4. Procurement Integrity Act / appearance of impropriety | DynCorp: AAR benefited from a former DynCorp employee’s disclosures; at least appearance of impropriety required disqualification. | State/AAR: no evidence AAR used proprietary information; CO reasonably found no appearance warranting exclusion. | Court: CO’s PIA determination rationally based on record; no disqualification required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (review requires coherent, reasonable agency explanation)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (bid award set‑aside grounds: lack of rational basis or procedural violation)
- OMV Med., Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discussing burden to show CO irrational or miscalculated)
- NKF Eng'g, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 373 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (appearance of impropriety can justify disqualification when supported by facts)
- Compliance Corp. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 193 (1990) (appearance that bidder used competitor’s bid taints procurement)