Greenland Contractors I/S v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 216
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- The Air Force solicited offers for operation, maintenance, and support of Thule Air Base (LPTA, firm-fixed-price with some cost-reimbursable CLINs). Four offerors bid: Exelis Services (awardee), Per Aarsleff, Copenhagen Arctic, and incumbent Greenland Contractors. Exelis had the lowest evaluated price and received the award.
- This Court initially set aside the award, holding Exelis ineligible under an RFP eligibility provision; the Federal Circuit reversed, finding Exelis eligible and that eligibility objections had been waived. The Court of Federal Claims then vacated its earlier judgment and dismissed the consolidated protests per the mandate.
- Greenland Contractors moved for reconsideration because two of its protest grounds had not been addressed on appeal: (1) the Air Force engaged in misleading discussions about Greenland Contractors’ pricing, and (2) the Air Force failed to evaluate whether other offerors justified their significantly lower pricing. The Court reopened Greenland Contractors’ severed claim for decision.
- Greenland Contractors’ pricing was higher than other bidders on several CLINs (notably termination liability). The Air Force issued an Evaluation Notice (EN) criticizing Greenland Contractors’ termination CLIN and, after Greenland Contractors revised, rated its total price reasonable, affordable, and balanced; Greenland Contractors argued the ENs misled it into thinking other CLINs were fine.
- The RFP required evaluation of total evaluated price, separately evaluated phase-in and termination CLINs, and advised offerors to justify “unique practices that significantly lower pricing.” The RFP did not expressly call for a price-realism analysis of low offers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discussions were misleading (FAR §15.306) | Greenland Contractors: Air Force only flagged termination CLIN, which misled it into believing other high CLINs were reasonable — discussions were not meaningful | Government: Air Force properly focused on termination CLIN (explicitly identified in RFP); total price was found reasonable so other CLINs need not be raised | Court: No misleading discussions; agency reasonably addressed termination CLIN per RFP and total price reasonableness, so no obligation to identify other CLINs |
| Whether RFP required evaluation of justifications for significantly lower pricing | Greenland Contractors: RFP’s advice to justify significantly lower pricing created an obligation to evaluate whether low offers were justified | Government/Intervenor: The provision merely advised offerors to justify unique practices that lower price; it did not impose a price-realism or general obligation to evaluate low pricing | Court: RFP did not require a general evaluation of low pricing; it invited justifications only for unique practices and the procurement used price-reasonableness (not price realism) |
Key Cases Cited
- Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 603 (Court of Federal Claims 2015) (trial court decision setting aside award on eligibility grounds)
- Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 829 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reversing eligibility-based vacatur and applying waiver/clarification principles)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standards for setting aside procurements under APA)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency must provide coherent, reasonable explanation of discretionary decisions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for administrative action)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (protester bears heavy burden to show award lacked rational basis)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (deferential review of procurement decisions)