Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 672
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- Line Gov’t Services protests the Army’s AAA contract award to McNeil Technologies in a post‑award bid protest.
- RFP No. W52P1J-09-R-0079 required AAA advisory, atmospheric and analysis services with a Go/No-Go technical evaluation, past performance, and price factors for best value.
- Eight offerors responded; the Army awarded to McNeil on February 17, 2010 after SSA trade‑off among price and past performance.
- GAO protests followed; the Army relied on bridge contracts pending final resolution, delaying performance and creating urgency in Iraq operations.
- SSA considered PPQs and additional sources (PPIRS, Google) for past performance, excluding plaintiff’s PPQs and GLS PPQ in evaluating intervenor.
- Line filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims; motions to dismiss were denied at bench, later consolidated with cross‑motions for judgment on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and prejudice standard | Line shows substantial chance of award but for errors | Line had no substantial chance; rank too low | Line has standing via allegational prejudice; substantial chance shown |
| Blue & Gold waiver rule and jurisdiction | Untimely price‑evaluation challenges are still reviewable | Waiver bars Counts 1–2 as patent errors/ambguitiy | Blue & Gold waiver is equitable, not jurisdictional; does not bar standing analysis |
| Legality of price evaluation method | Total Evaluated Price should be sum of extended prices | Price evaluated per Section M as sum of unit prices; no ambiguity | Price evaluation conducted in accordance with the Solicitation; no basis to disturb |
| Past performance evaluation and GLS/GLS PPQ | SSA improperly excluded GLS PPQ and limited sources | SSA properly weighed PPQs and considered alternative sources within discretion | SSA’s past performance evaluation and GLS PPQ exclusion were lawful |
| Exclusive discussions vs clarifications | Army engaged in improper discussions to advantage intervenor | Exchange was a permissible clarification under FAR 15.306(a)(2) | Exchange with intervenor was a lawful clarification; no improper discussions |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2007) (waiver of untimely challenges to solicitation terms; equity-based rule)
- ITAC, Inc. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed.Cir.2003) (substantial chance prejudice standard in bid protests)
- AFGE v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2001) (definition of interested party and direct economic interest)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir.2005) (two-step prejudice/APA prejudice analysis in bid protest)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (standard of review for arbitrariness in procurement decisions)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir.2009) (clarifies prejudice standard applicability in post‑award protests)
- CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567 (Fed.Cir.1983) (substantial chance test for implied contract protests)
- United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed.Cir.1983) (implied contract theory for bid protests pre‑ADRA)