Firstline Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 116

Background

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. (incumbent) challenged TSA’s award of an SPP fixed-price, best-value contract for screening at Kansas City International (MCI) after a reprocurement; Akal Security, Inc. received award.
This is FirstLine’s third judicial challenge: FirstLine I (sustained protest), agency reprocured and amended solicitation after FirstLine II (pre-award protest), then award to Akal produced the present post-award protest.
RFP evaluation used technical factors (Cost Efficiency; Operational Screening Management; Program Management; Logistics & Training; Transition; Past Performance) and Price; Factors 2–6 combined were roughly equal to price.
TET, PPET, PET, and SSEB evaluated proposals; both FirstLine and Akal received identical non-price adjectival ratings (e.g., Outstanding or Good) and the SSA concluded proposals were technically equal; Akal’s lower price produced best-value award.
The Court remanded for agency explanation on six topics (including Akal’s low screening hours, employee-retention plan, low award fee, conformity with SOPs/ATSA, and rationale for identical non-price ratings); after remand TSA explained and reaffirmed its award decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Akal's low number of screening hours	Akal proposed materially fewer LTSO/STSO screening hours — risk of understaffing, SOP violations, or extra billable hours; TSA failed to assess breakdown by labor category	TSA evaluated productive hours and compared Akal’s screening hours to the Government SAM estimate (not incumbent history); difference was marginal and supported by TET strengths (part‑time flexibility, QMS, dashboard)	Court: TSA’s remand analysis rationally addressed screening hours; difference from SAM was small and did not show irrationality
2) Akal's proposed employee retention rate	Akal’s proposed retention (high %) is unrealistic given lower wages — risk to staffing and performance	TSA found retention mitigated by Akal’s flexible compensation and recruiting plans and by comparable retention at other SPP sites; speculative to assume failure	Court: TSA reasonably assessed mitigation and did not act irrationally in crediting retention plan
3) Akal's low award fee	Low award fee reduces incentive to perform well; TSA ignored motivational risk	TSA relied on employee incentive program, competition, and other proposal features that would motivate performance despite low fee	Court: TSA reasonably concluded the low award fee did not create unacceptable risk
4) Use of temporary promotions and SOP/ATSA compliance	Akal’s temporary promotions scheme (and failure to review SOPs pre-proposal) risks noncompliance with SOPs if STSO hours are insufficient	SOPs permit LTSOs to act as STSOs when FSDs designate; TSA found no SOP violation and no performance risk given hours analysis	Court: TSA reasonably found temporary promotions compliant with SOPs and SOW; no procurement error
5) Identical technical ratings for incumbent vs. newcomer	It is irrational for an inexperienced Akal to receive ratings equal to long-time incumbent FirstLine (esp. Transition factor)	No rule requires incumbency preference; evaluations are independent and may credit innovative approaches that mitigate incumbency advantage	Court: TSA reasonably documented technical equivalence; ratings need not favor incumbent

Key Cases Cited

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (review standard for bid protest; two-step analysis)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (arbitrary and capricious standard)
Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (requirement for coherent, reasonable explanation of agency discretion)
E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir.) (courts defer to agency technical judgments)
Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir.) (equitable factors for injunctive relief)