InSpace 21 LLC v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 69
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- The Air Force issued a consolidated LISC OMS solicitation for launch/test range operations (2015–2024) with detailed PWS and a Work Breakdown Structure; proposals were evaluated on Technical Capability (pass/fail), Past Performance (pass/fail), Technical Risk (low/moderate/high), and Price (price slightly more important than Technical Risk).
- InSpace21 (PAE/Honeywell JV) and RGNext (Raytheon/General Dynamics JV) were among four offerors; after discussions and final proposal revisions, the SSEB and SSAC rated all four offerors Acceptable on Technical Capability and Low Risk on Technical Risk.
- Three minority opinions questioned RGNext’s staffing approach: (1) concerns about use of part-time/cross-utilized employees and union/proficiency risks; (2) concern that RGNext’s aggregate staffing (≈38% reduction vs. incumbents) was too low; (3) SSAC advisor echoed the aggregate-staffing concern and suggested workload (launches) might be understated.
- The SSA accepted the majority analyses (SSEB/SSAC), awarded the contract to RGNext based on lower price, and the awardee began performance after GAO dismissed InSpace’s GAO protest on interested‑party grounds; InSpace filed suit in Court of Federal Claims challenging the evaluation and award.
- The court reviewed the administrative record (extensive evaluation documents, ENs, BOEs) and denied InSpace’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, granting the government and RGNext cross-motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laches | Delay between GAO dismissal and filing in CFC prejudiced RGNext; dismissal warranted | Delay was reasonable (GAO reconsideration pursued); RGNext’s prejudice is economic/competitive, not laches-type | Laches not applied: InSpace sought GAO reconsideration and filed promptly after denial; RGNext did not show defense or economic prejudice sufficient for laches |
| Treatment of minority opinions | Air Force arbitrarily disregarded three minority opinions raising material performance risks | Minority opinions were considered at multiple levels; majority conclusions explained and grounded in record/EN responses | Agency reasonably considered and responded to minority opinions; rejection of minorities was rational and explained |
| Staffing levels & labor‑hours risk | RGNext’s overall reduced labor hours and task‑level hour variances made its proposal risky and should have resulted in higher Technical Risk | Solicitation required task‑level BOEs and sufficiency per task; baseline incumbent hours were informational only, not a discriminator | Agency rationally evaluated sufficiency at task/BOE level; aggregate reductions alone did not make proposal high risk |
| Part‑time/cross‑utilized labor | Use of part‑time/cross‑utilized staff created retention, proficiency, and union risks not addressed | ENs elicited responses showing part‑time <4%, not in critical positions, unions engaged; training/certification planned | Agency reasonably relied on RGNext’s EN responses and found risk low; evaluation not arbitrary |
| SSA decision detail | SSA’s brief decision improperly relied on SSEB and was cursory | SSA may rely on detailed SSEB/SSAC analyses; not required to duplicate record | SSA’s reliance on a detailed PAR and SSAC was permissible under procurement rules; decision not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (focal point for judicial review is the administrative record)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must examine relevant data and provide a satisfactory explanation)
- Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (administrative decisions reviewed under APA standards; narrow scope of review)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (motion for judgment on the administrative record standards in bid protests)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (tests for arbitrary and capricious review and procurement procedure violations)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (courts will not second‑guess minutiae of procurement technical judgments)
- Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (four‑factor permanent injunction test in bid protests)