Inforeliance Corporation v. United States
118 Fed. Cl. 744
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- InfoReliance (plaintiff) protested the Marine Corps’ award of a consolidated IT contract to SAIC, alleging the procurement was tainted by evaluator bias.
- Solicitation indicated award likely without discussions; initial review disqualified multiple offerors but InfoReliance also was not awarded due to concerns about unrealistic pricing for a sample task.
- The agency established a competitive range including InfoReliance and SAIC, solicited revisions, then awarded to SAIC on higher technical rating and lower price.
- Plaintiff alleges MERP chairperson and COR Sheri Stefaniga was biased in favor of SAIC and improperly influenced the evaluation to prevent award to InfoReliance.
- Plaintiff supported its motion for limited discovery with a declaration (Perry Decl.) recounting statements by two procurement officials (Wright and Franco) alleging conduct and statements by Stefaniga that are “hard to explain absent bias.”
- The court granted limited discovery and supplementation of the administrative record, finding the allegations contained sufficient “hard facts” to overcome the presumption of regularity at the discovery stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extra-record discovery and supplementation of the administrative record is warranted to investigate alleged evaluator bias | Stefaniga exhibited bias and improper advocacy for SAIC; witness statements justify depositions and document production | Administrative record contradicts bias claims; Stefaniga was not the SSA and lacked authority to taint award | Court: Granted limited discovery and supplementation — plaintiff’s allegations are specific, supported by hard facts, and discovery could yield proof overcoming presumption of regularity |
| Whether allegations relying on hearsay (Perry Decl.) may support discovery | Declarations recounting others’ statements justify obtaining their testimony and documents | Government contends Perry Decl. is hearsay and inadmissible | Court: Permits reliance on the declaration for the limited purpose of justifying discovery; statements sought are for obtaining admissible testimony and some statements qualify as party admissions |
| Whether an evaluator who is not the SSA can be the basis for discovery into bias | Stefaniga chaired MERP and her role was to influence source selection; chaired panel’s conduct could have affected outcome | Because Stefaniga was not the ultimate decisionmaker, plaintiff must show how she improperly influenced the SSA | Court: Chair of evaluation panel occupies a role designed to influence selection; proof of bias and its effect on award is a merits question best resolved after limited discovery |
| Whether deliberative process privilege protects draft documents prepared by Stefaniga | If relevant to bad-faith claim, drafts should be producible | Government asserts drafts are privileged and exempt from record | Court: Privilege does not bar production where a showing of bad faith has been made for purposes of discovery (noted but not finally decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (administrative-record supplementation is rare but permitted to avoid frustrating review)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (scope of judicial review of informal agency decisions)
- Beta Analytics Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 223 (2004) (plaintiff must show motivation or conduct hard to explain absent bad faith to justify discovery)
- DataMill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 722 (2010) (need to show how non-decisionmaker could improperly influence award)
- Orion Int’l Techs. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 338 (2004) (extra-record supplementation appropriate for evidence of bad faith, omitted information, or conversational content)