Lb&b Associates Inc. v. United States, 21-2104

Background

NARA issued an RFQ under the GSA MAS for complete facilities maintenance (CFM) at Archives I (DC) and Archives II (College Park); vendors submitted fixed-price five-year quotes.
Incumbent LB&B (16+ years) and EMCOR were among four offerors; NARA originally awarded the task order to EMCOR; LB&B protested and the Court remanded for a reevaluation.
On remand the same three-member evaluation team again unanimously concluded EMCOR offered the best value; LB&B alleges the reevaluation was arbitrary and capricious, applied unstated criteria, disparately treated LB&B, and violated NARA’s Vendor Screening Plan (VSP).
Key evaluation disputes: NARA assigned LB&B weaknesses (use of two subcontractors for high-voltage electrical work, isolated personnel/backfill issues, failures of Tridium BAS and Chiller2a, irrigation practices) and awarded EMCOR strengths (Maximo/CMMS capabilities, past NARA O&M experience, food-service experience, pool of funds for unforeseen maintenance).
The Court denied LB&B’s MJAR, granted the government’s and EMCOR’s cross-MJARs (and alternatively granted motions to dismiss), finding the reevaluation and best-value decision rational, no prejudice to LB&B, the VSP was internal (not soliciting rights), and LB&B failed to prove bias.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rationality of NARA’s reevaluation of LB&B (technical weaknesses)	NARA arbitrarily assigned weaknesses (two subcontractors for switchgear/transformer, personnel/backfill problems, BAS/chiller failures, irrigation) and used unstated criteria.	Evaluators reasonably relied on RFQ, incumbent experience, personal knowledge and outside sources; concerns were explained and within agency discretion.	Court upheld the reevaluation as rational and not arbitrary or capricious.
Rationality of NARA’s evaluation of EMCOR (assigned strengths/no weaknesses)	EMCOR received unsupported strengths and escaped weaknesses (food-service, prior NARA O&M, solar maintenance, key personnel/subcontractor issues).	EMCOR’s proposal supported the strengths; RFQ did not require naming specific system-trained personnel or subcontractors; solar is part of electrical systems.	Court sustained EMCOR’s ratings as reasonable.
Disparate treatment	NARA treated LB&B worse than EMCOR for materially similar issues (electrical subcontractors, watering/landscaping, food/childcare experience, past-performance scrutiny).	Office Design standard requires showing proposals were "substantively indistinguishable"; LB&B cannot make that showing.	Court dismissed disparate-treatment claims for failure to show substantive indistinguishability.
Evaluation-team composition and VSP (price-blind requirement)	Using the same evaluators and a non-price-blind reevaluation violated the VSP and biased the process.	The VSP was an internal, non‑solicitation document that does not confer rights; the SSA knew/approved the approach; LB&B waived timely challenge and offered no clear evidence of bad faith.	Court held the claim fails (VSP not incorporated; no irrefragable proof of bias); claim dismissed/12(b)(6) granted alternatively.

Key Cases Cited

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard; courts defer to agency reasoning absent irrationality)
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (deferential review; sustain agency action if rational and considers relevant factors)
Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (judgment on the administrative record; prejudice standard for bid protests)
Off. Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (unequal-treatment claims require proposals to be substantively indistinguishable)
Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (waiver rule for solicitation defects; timely objections required)
PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (factors for permanent injunctive relief)