Enhanced Veterans Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565

Background

USCIS issued Solicitation HSSCCG-14-R-00027 for records management/service center operations (Group A: Nebraska & Texas). Award to be best value; Technical, Price, Past Performance evaluated (Technical had four subfactors).
eVETS and four other offerors (including awardee Central Research, Inc. (CRI)) submitted proposals. After discussions and Amendments, eVETS reduced proposed TSC file-operations staffing from ~260 to 176 FTEs in its final proposal revision (FPR).
The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) assigned eVETS a Marginal overall Technical rating driven by a significant weakness in the Operational Approach subfactor (insufficient TSC file-operations staffing). CRI received an overall Good rating.
The SSA concluded eVETS’s staffing presented an "unacceptable risk," excluded eVETS from the best-value tradeoff, and awarded the contract to CRI. GAO denied eVETS’s protest. eVETS sued in the Court of Federal Claims.
The Court reviewed whether the agency acted arbitrarily or violated procurement rules on: (1) evaluation of eVETS’s Operational Approach/staffing, (2) roll-up of subfactor ratings to the Technical factor, (3) exclusion from best-value tradeoff, (4) disparate treatment, (5) responsibility determination for CRI re: subcontractor FCi, and (6) CRI’s past performance/corporate experience.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the TEC unreasonable in assigning a significant weakness / Marginal for Operational Approach (TSC staffing)?	eVETS: TEC ignored eVETS’s explanation and misinterpreted Attachment 1; staffing reduction was justified by ELIS work exclusion and productivity gains.	USCIS: TEC reasonably concluded eVETS understaffed by ~80+ FTEs; eVETS’ discussion response did not explain how required work would be performed.	Held: Agency acted reasonably; significant weakness supported and not arbitrary.
2. Did the agency violate solicitation by "rolling up" a subfactor Marginal to an overall Technical Marginal despite stated equal subfactor weights?	eVETS: Roll-up gave 100% effect to Operational Approach contrary to stated equal importance.	USCIS: Adjectival ratings and roll-up methodology are permissible; agency reasonably used a minimum-standard approach to avoid masking serious weaknesses.	Held: Roll-up methodology not unlawful or unreasonable under the circumstances.
3. Should eVETS have been included in the best-value tradeoff?	eVETS: Excluding a Marginal-rated offeror denied consideration of its much-lower price; would have affected award.	USCIS: SSA reasonably excluded eVETS as non-viable due to unacceptable risk from understaffing; inclusion would not have changed outcome.	Held: Exclusion was reasonable; SSA explained why eVETS’ price could not justify the risk.
4. Did the agency evaluate eVETS disparately (training, QC, proprietary tools)?	eVETS: USCIS gave strengths to competitors for features similar to those in eVETS’ proposal.	USCIS: Differences in substance and presentation justified differing strengths; evaluations were not arbitrary.	Held: No disparate treatment shown; proposals were not sufficiently similar to require identical treatment.
5. Was CRI responsible given misconduct allegations about subcontractor FCi?	eVETS: Public allegations and state-court matters made FCi/CRI not responsible under FAR 9.104-1.	USCIS: Contracting officer reasonably checked SAM/FAPIIS/PPIRS and internet searches; allegations were civil and not disqualifying.	Held: Responsibility determination was rational; supplementation of record (news/lawsuit filings) did not change outcome.
6. Were CRI’s Past Performance and Corporate Experience evaluations unreasonable or improperly based on subcontractor experience?	eVETS: CRI improperly relied on FCi’s experience; some referenced contracts irrelevant.	USCIS: Solicitation allowed aggregating prime and major subcontractor experience; TEC/BEC reasonably found relevance and low risk.	Held: Agency reasonably credited aggregate experience and past performance.

Key Cases Cited

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (sets forth arbitrary-and-capricious standard and emphasis on administrative record)
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (administrative record is focal point for review)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must examine relevant data and provide a reasoned explanation)
Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (court may not supply agency rationale that the agency did not provide)
Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (2009) (scope of review on the record; supplementation limits)
Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (2005) (standard for judgment on the administrative record)
Glenn Defense Marine (BD) v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (2013) (adjectival ratings are not numeric scores to be averaged)