Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 568
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Glenn Defense Marine (Asia) protests the Navy's price evaluation methodology in Solicitation No. N62649-09-R-0041 for maritime husbanding services.
- The protest concerns targeted lots and how LOGREQ-based quantities are used to calculate total evaluated price.
- The Solicitation includes price schedules with some items having estimated quantities and others labeled No Estimate; LOGREQs are not disclosed to bidders.
- Plaintiff argues disclosure of targeted LOGREQs is needed to bid intelligently and to ensure a common basis for evaluation.
- Defendant argues LOGREQs provide a common basis and that disclosure of targeted LOGREQs is not required; non-disclosed items may still be fairly priced.
- The court denied the protest, granting defendant’s motion, and denied injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of information for bidding | GDMA argues LOGREQs are necessary for intelligent bidding. | Navy contends LOGREQs provide a common basis without disclosing actual targeted LOGREQs. | LOGREQs provide a sufficient basis; disclosure not required. |
| Applicability of FAR 15.404-1(g) to pre-award solicitation design | FAR 15.404-1(g) applies to unbalanced pricing and should affect the solicitation. | FAR 15.404-1(g) governs post-submission price analysis, not solicitation design. | FAR 15.404-1(g) is not applicable to the pre-award dispute. |
| Permanent injunctive relief | Permanent injunctive relief should issue to prevent an award under the current form. | Injunctive relief is unwarranted if the protest is not meritorious. | Injunctive relief not warranted because the protest fails on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (two-step bid protest standard; error and prejudice)
- NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (APA review; rational basis standard)
- Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (pre-award standards; relevance of regulations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. refused, 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (highly deferential arbitrary-and-capricious review)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (deference and rational basis in procurement challenges)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (arbitrary and capricious; regulation or procedure violation analysis)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prejudice requirement; non-trivial competitive injury)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (price analysis and evaluation methodology standards)