Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12944
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- The Navy solicited Region 1 (South Asia) maritime husbanding services as firm-fixed-price IDIQ with 12-month base and four 1-year options, using a best-value, non-price-factor evaluation.
- Offerors submitted separate proposals per region; non-price factors (Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price) were considered with non-price factors significantly more important than price.
- GDMA and MLS submitted Region 1 proposals; past performance data for GDMA showed several negative narrative comments and late/unsatisfactory actions, while MLS had predominantly positive past performance evaluations.
- GDMA’s past performance was ultimately rated Less than Satisfactory; MLS’s past performance was rated Better; MLS’s price was higher than GDMA’s.
- A trade-off analysis favored MLS due to superior past performance despite higher price, and MLS was awarded Contract N62649-11-D-0015 on June 24, 2011.
- GDMA protested to GAO, which denied relief; GDMA then sued in the Court of Federal Claims, which denied relief, and GDMA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the best-value decision reasonable? | GDMA contends the Navy erred by relying on flawed past-performance evaluations. | MLS’s superior past performance and overall package justified best value despite GDMA’s lower price. | Not arbitrary; decision supported by record. |
| Did the past-performance ratings have a rational basis? | GDMA argues ratings did not reflect the evidence; subfactors and narrative comments support a higher rating. | Ratings were rationally based on all evidence, including negative narratives, not just overall scores. | Past-performance ratings had a rational basis. |
| Did MLS’s subcontractor-relevance findings have a rational basis? | GDMA claims MLS’s subcontractor references were not sufficiently relevant to support a higher rating. | Subcontracts involved similar ports and vessel types, supporting relevance and a higher rating for MLS. | Yes; MLS’s past performance was rationally found to be better. |
| Was GDMA prejudiced by the past-performance rating? | A more favorable GDMA rating would likely have changed the outcome. | Even with a higher GDMA rating, GDMA would still face a competitive disadvantage and risk; prejudice not shown. | GDMA failed to prove prejudicial error. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (substantial discretion in procurement; rational basis required)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice required to prevail in bid protests)
- Galen Medical Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (de novo review; arbitrariness standard in bid protests)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (procurement procedure analysis; rational basis review)
- Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 617 F.2d 590 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (deference to contracting officers; discretion in procurement)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (broad agency discretion in procurement decisions)
- Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (post-protest evidence admissible in bid protests)