Iron Bow Technologies, LLC v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 764
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Marine Corps issued an urgent solicitation for Network Access Control, Compliance, and Remediation hardware/services (firm‑fixed‑price IDIQ); proposals had to be complete, traceable between technical narrative, staffing, and BOE, and price had to be compatible with the technical approach.
- Iron Bow proposed a ForeScout‑based solution and submitted initial, first revised (FPR‑1), and second revised (FPR‑2) proposals after rounds of discussions; the Corps identified numerous weaknesses/deficiencies in earlier submissions.
- During second‑round discussions the Corps asked Iron Bow to substantiate labor hours and ensure labor categories in the BOE matched the technical/staffing narrative; Iron Bow initially said it would not change hours, then in FPR‑2 increased hours for design/integration (~25%) and sustainment (~26%) and altered staffing without fully updating the technical approach.
- The technical evaluation rated Iron Bow ‘‘marginal’’ due to a significant weakness: the Corps could not trace or determine reasonableness of the large, unexplained increases in labor hours or reconcile labor categories between the BOE and narrative (including cyber security engineering traceability).
- Source Selection Authority found price untraceable to the technical solution and deemed Iron Bow unawardable under solicitation terms; contract awarded to ACES; Iron Bow filed suit in Court of Federal Claims challenging discussions and evaluation.
- Court of Federal Claims held Iron Bow had standing but found discussions were adequate and non‑misleading and the Corps’ evaluation and rejection of Iron Bow’s FPR‑2 were rational and not arbitrary or capricious; Iron Bow’s MJAR denied, government and ACES MJARs granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of discussions — did the agency fail to inform Iron Bow it needed to substantiate post‑discussion labor‑hour increases? | Iron Bow: Corps did not disclose it required substantiation of added hours; would have revised technical approach if told. | Gov/ACES: Corps twice warned to tie hours to technical approach and to make BOE/narrative consistent; that satisfied discussion obligations. | Held: Discussions adequate; Corps reasonably led Iron Bow to areas needing amplification; no duty to spoon‑feed. |
| Misleading acknowledgment during discussions | Iron Bow: Corps’ acknowledgment of Iron Bow’s explanation implied the issue was resolved, so further explanation was unnecessary. | Gov/ACES: Acknowledgment is not acceptance; solicitation and comments repeatedly required traceability/substantiation. | Held: Acknowledgment did not mislead; Iron Bow remained required to update technical approach to justify hour changes. |
| Failure to reopen discussions after Iron Bow changed hours post‑discussion | Iron Bow: Corps should have reopened discussions when Iron Bow increased hours. | Gov/ACES: No obligation to reopen for changes made after close of discussions; agencies need not reopen absent clear requirement. | Held: Corps had no duty to reopen; changes made after discussions could be evaluated as submitted. |
| Reasonableness of evaluation — sustainment and staffing inconsistencies (including cyber engineering) | Iron Bow: Increases corrected internal BOE errors (e.g., doubling CLIN 36 months); Corps should have known changes fixed mistakes rather than showing lack of understanding. | Gov/ACES: Iron Bow failed to make proposal traceable/complete as required; Corps reasonably concluded unexplained increases posed high performance risk and made price untraceable to technical approach. | Held: Evaluation was reasonable; Iron Bow’s failure to explain changes caused the evaluators’ inability to determine reasonableness; rejection was not arbitrary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.) (standing and interested‑party requirements in bid protests)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (direct economic interest and standing standards)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir.) (interested‑party analysis in procurement challenges)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (arbitrary and capricious standard; agency must provide coherent, reasonable explanation)
- Bannum Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (RCFC 52.1 / judgment on the administrative record distinction)
- PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (disappointed offeror must identify hard facts showing irrationality)
- Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas‑Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (U.S.) (court may not substitute its judgment for agency’s reasonable decision)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir.) (agency must generally lead offerors to areas needing amplification during discussions)