Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation v. United States, 21-1394

Background

The Army issued an RFQ under an EXPRESS BPA (FAR 8.405-3) for a hybrid task order (initial 12-month firm‑fixed‑price "Technical Direction" plus five T&M option years) rated on a best‑value tradeoff among Technical Expertise, Risk Mitigation (equal weight), and Price (least important but more important as non‑price ratings converged).
Intuitive Research & Technology (plaintiff) and Booz Allen Hamilton (intervenor) submitted quotations; a five‑member team rated both offerors "Outstanding" on Technical Expertise and Risk Mitigation; Intuitive had more strengths and covered more critical PWS areas.
Price quotes: Intuitive ~$322.9M; Booz Allen ~$291.5M — a 10.8% difference. The CO concluded both proposals were outstanding and realistic but awarded to Booz Allen based primarily on price savings.
Intuitive protested administratively and then filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims arguing defective price‑realism analysis, use of unstated evaluation criteria, unequal evaluation (failure to treat like proposals alike), and improper refusal to assign strengths.
The Court applied the APA’s highly deferential arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard, reviewed the administrative record on cross‑motions, and denied Intuitive’s protest, finding the agency’s evaluation and best‑value decision reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Price realism analysis adequacy	Intuitive: agency failed to perform a meaningful price‑realism analysis and Booz Allen’s firm‑fixed Technical Direction pricing (Admin Specialist/Lead Engineer 75/25 split) was unrealistically low and inconsistent with requirements.	Gov’t: agency reviewed BOEs, found prices reasonable/realistic; initial Technical Direction scope was narrower than plaintiff asserts; the firm‑fixed part was a tiny fraction of total hours so no prejudice.	Court: upheld agency. Price‑realism analysis reasonable; agency rationally concluded Booz Allen understood scope and price was realistic.
Use of unstated evaluation criteria in best‑value decision	Intuitive: CO relied on non‑solicited terms ("collaborative, distinctive, efficient/transparent") in selecting Booz Allen.	Gov’t: CO used RFQ tradeoff scheme; the stray language was surplusage and price was the controlling differentiator per the solicitation.	Court: stray language was harmless surplusage; CO’s decision was consistent with RFQ and driven by price.
Unequal evaluation (Windchill/COTS strength)	Intuitive: both offered same COTS tools but only Booz Allen received a strength — disparate treatment.	Gov’t: proposed uses differed materially; Booz Allen demonstrated additional/distinctive uses (e.g., equipment‑failure analysis) warranting a strength.	Court: no disparate treatment; differences were not "substantively indistinguishable," so evaluation was rational.
Failure to assign additional strengths to Intuitive	Intuitive: record showed it exceeded certain Quality Management and other PWS requirements and merited additional strengths.	Gov’t: assignment of strengths was reasonable; Intuitive has not shown the agency acted irrationally—mere disagreement is insufficient.	Court: declined to second‑guess judgmental strength assignments; plaintiff failed to show irrationality or prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standard of review for bid protests under the APA)
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (highly deferential review of agency procurement decisions)
Office Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (standard for disparate‑evaluation claims; must show proposals were substantively indistinguishable)
Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (prejudice requirement in procurement protests)
Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (but‑for prejudice standard for bid protest relief)