Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States
105 Fed. Cl. 541
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- This bid protest challenges a Navy best-value award for Region 1 of a four-region maritime husbanding services contract won by MLS over Glenn Defense Marine, with Glenn Defense Marine contesting the past performance evaluations and the trade-off decision.
- Region 1 procurement used a negotiated, best-value framework with non-price factors (Technical Approach and Past Performance) significantly more important than price, and allowed tradeoffs among price and non-price factors.
- Glenn Defense Marine submitted a proposal with the lowest price but a Less than Satisfactory past performance rating, while MLS had a higher price but Better past performance; both were in the competitive range after initial evaluations.
- Past performance was evaluated through a team process that reviewed questionnaires, CPARS, and narratives, with later re-evaluations lowering GDMA’s rating based on additional information and responsive discussions.
- The SSA conducted a trade-off analysis, determining MLS offered the best value due to superior past performance and contract-management benefits, despite MLS’s higher price.
- GAO denied Glenn Defense Marine’s pre-award protest and the Court ultimately denied GDMA’s post-award bid protest, upholding the Navy’s past performance determinations and best-value decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GDMA’s past performance rating was arbitrary or not in accordance with the solicitation | GDMA argues ratings relied on selective questionnaires and failed to reflect favorable high-relevance feedback. | Navy contends ratings were based on a comprehensive record, including narrative comments, and consistent with the solicitation. | Not arbitrary; ratings supported by the record and deference due to agency. |
| Whether MLS’s past performance was evaluated rationally and fairly | GDMA asserts MLS’s subcontractor references were insufficiently informative yet used to support a higher rating. | MLS’s past performance was adequately supported by multiple highly relevant references and narrative context. | Not arbitrary; evaluation was reasonable and consistent with criteria. |
| Whether the best-value trade-off was rational and properly documented | GDMA contends the price premium for MLS was not justified by the purported benefits and documentation was lacking. | SSA documented the trade-off with support for MLS based on performance risk, pricing transparency, and administration. | Rational and properly documented; MLS awarded best value. |
| Whether Section 8.2.4 allowed the PPET to weigh highly relevant references differently from moderately relevant ones | GDMA claims PPET overruled high-relevance ratings contrary to the solicitation. | Defense argues 8.2.4 permits weighting by relevance and does not bind PPET to the references’ overall ratings. | Permissible; PPET correctly weighed highly relevant references more heavily. |
| Whether GDMA was prejudiced by the Navy’s evaluation and trade-off process | GDMA asserts error cost it the award and seeks injunctive relief and costs. | Award to MLS was based on a reasonable, well-documented evaluation and trade-off; prejudice not shown. | No substantial prejudice; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (rigorous but deferential rational-basis review in bid protests)
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir.2004) (strong deference to agency best-value decisions)
- Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1996) (prejudice standard requires showing substantial chance of award but-for error)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 449 (Fed.Cir.1996) (procurement officials have substantial discretion in best-value decisions)