Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 186
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- USSOCOM issued a May 27, 2010 final RFP for ITSM services under SITEC to migrate EITC IT services; the ITSM contract was to support ITMO and integration across providers.
- Jacobs, IBM, and three other offerors submitted proposals; the SSA awarded the contract to Jacobs after a trade-off, with Jacobs cited for full operating capability benefits.
- IBM protested to GAO on multiple grounds, including an unstated evaluation factor (full operating capability) and unequal information provided to competitors.
- GAO sustained IBM’s protest findings: (i) the RFP failed to notify offerors about an evaluation factor for full operating capability, and (ii) information regarding service desk requirements caused unequal competition.
- USSOCOM amended the solicitation to address GAO’s recommendations, clarifying full operating capability requirements and service desk quantities for evaluation and allowing revised proposals; Jacobs challenged the corrective action in this court.
- The court subsequently denied Jacobs’ motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the Government’s and IBM’s cross-motions, finding GAO’s rational conclusions and corrective action reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GAO's unstated evaluation factor for full operating capability was rationally applied | Jacobs argues the RFP did not notify of an FPS factor; GAO irrationally applied it. | USSOCOM's adoption of GAO’s recommendation was rational given lack of defined criteria. | Yes; GAO rationally concluded the factor was unstated and improperly applied. |
| Whether the RFP provided information so offerors could compete on a relatively equal basis | IBM/Jacobs contended misalignment between RFP desk-user data and evaluation data disadvantaged others; Jacobs argues misled competition. | GAO’s finding that information was inadequate and misleading was rational given discrepancies. | Yes; GAO rationally found information inadequate for equal competition. |
| Whether USSOCOM’s corrective action was rational and lawful | Jacobs contends corrective action improperly amended the RFP. | corrective action supported by GAO rational basis; reasonable remedy. | Yes; corrective action rational and not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (test for APA review of procurement actions; rational basis required)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed.Cir.1989) (deference to GAO; not de novo review of GAO recommendations)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir.2005) (use of RCFC 52.1 expedited, paper-record review)
- Firth Construction Co. v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 268 (Fed.Cl. 1996) (courts review GAO rationality in bid protests)
- Lyons Security Services, Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 783 (Fed.Cl.1997) (rational basis for agency corrective action)