Office Design Group v. United States
951 F.3d 1366
| Fed. Cir. | 2020Background
- On May 5, 2017 the VA issued five essentially identical RFPs (one per geographic region) for indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for healthcare furniture (5-year base + 5-year option).
- Award criteria: best-value tradeoff considering Technical Capability (most important), Past Performance, and Price.
- Technical Capability subfactor 3 required a narrative addressing SV1–SV4 (SOW sections) and eight key elements (staffing plan, inventory/cataloging, personnel qualifications, warranty process, AutoCAD/PDF capability, life-safety/infection-control knowledge, etc.).
- Attachment 15 was a 33-question yes/no checklist mapped to SV1–SV4; an RFP amendment said Attachment 15 would be used as a checklist to evaluate technical proposals. The agency assigned 2 points per “yes”; 40 points (20 yes answers) was the passing threshold.
- ODG submitted proposals for all regions but received an "unacceptable" technical rating (6 of 33 questions found, 12 points). ODG protested to GAO (denied) and to the Court of Federal Claims (agency and intervenor judgment granted). ODG appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VA unreasonably relied on Attachment 15 contrary to the RFP | ODG: VA never announced it would score proposals against Attachment 15; thus reliance was inconsistent with the RFP | VA: amendment expressly stated Attachment 15 would be used as a checklist to evaluate technical proposals; offerors had adequate notice | Court: VA provided clear, reasonable notice; use of Attachment 15 was proper |
| Whether the VA disparately evaluated ODG’s technical proposal | ODG: its deficiencies were similar to awardees’, so the VA unreasonably downgraded ODG while crediting others | VA: ODG’s proposal was substantively distinguishable in numerous respects; agencies need not give identical ratings to dissimilar proposals | Court: adopted "substantively indistinguishable" standard; most alleged disparities fail because ODG’s proposal was distinguishable; two small inconsistent point awards found but non-prejudicial (even with extra points ODG would not meet the 40-point threshold) |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn Defense Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (de novo review of judgment on administrative record in bid protest)
- Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 595 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard and framework for bid protest review)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (review focuses on rational basis and regulatory compliance)
- COMINT Sys. Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (courts should not substitute their judgment for agency discretion on technical ratings)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (courts will not second-guess discretionary technical evaluations)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (prejudice requires showing a substantial chance of award but for the error)
- CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (prejudice is a factual question reviewed for clear error)