MED Trends, Inc. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 1
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- MED Trends protested DOL's award of a VETS GWAC task order for IT services to MicroTech.
- RFQ 547327 (Feb 23, 2011) used a best-value evaluation with non-price factors more important than price; price became more important if non-price ratings approached equality.
- Task order was firm fixed-price with base year plus four option years; IGCE guided price analysis and was based on historical data and labor-hours projections.
- Three offerors (MED Trends, [another bidder], and MicroTech) were evaluated on Factor I (Technical Capability) with subfactors; MED Trends received Good overall technical with some Marginal subfactor ratings; MicroTech generally scored higher on technical and past performance.
- Award to MicroTech issued June 10, 2011; MED Trends received debriefing; MED Trends filed protest June 24, 2011 challenging price analysis and best-value tradeoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the protest. | FASA sunset bars apply; GAO exclusive jurisdiction may apply. | Sunset provision may be read to limit or end court jurisdiction. | Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). |
| Intervenor's standing to challenge the award. | MED Trends was prejudiced; intervenor argues lack of standing. | Intervenor has standing to challenge the award. | Intervenor's standing challenge failed; not dismissal on standing grounds. |
| Whether the price analysis complied with FAR and was reasoned. | IGCE-based price analysis was flawed and unreliable. | IGCE-based analysis was a permissible method; reasonable under FAR 15.404-1. | Price analysis was not arbitrary or capricious and complied with FAR. |
| Whether the best-value tradeoff was properly documented and rational. | Tradeoff relied solely on price/IGCE; lack of qualitative tradeoffs. | Rationale documented in Award Decision Memorandum; RFQ weighted non-price factors highly. | Best-value tradeoff was proper and not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (contracting officers have broad discretion in awarding based on best value)
- CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 552 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (supports deference to agency’s tradeoff decisions)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (review of agency decision on administrative record)
- Biospherics, Inc. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 1 (2000) (agencies have latitude in evaluating price proposals)
- Digital Tech., Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 711 (2009) (FASA bid protests and scope of agency review)
- Navarro Research & Eng., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 224 (2010) (statutory interpretation in bid protests)