105 Fed. Cl. 706
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Omniplex filed a post-award bid protest against OPM’s OPM15-11-R-0003 solicitation for investigative fieldwork.
- OPM awarded contracts on Oct 21, 2011 to three incumbents: CACI, KeyPoint, and USIS; Omniplex was excluded.
- OPM planned to divide work between in-house FIS staff and contractors; Omniplex was an incumbent contractor.
- Plaintiff challenged (i) failure to request final proposal revisions from all in-range offerors under FAR 15.307(b); (ii) failure to engage in meaningful discussions under FAR 15.306(d)(3); (iii) unreasonable evaluation of Omniplex’s technical proposal.
- OPM revised the solicitation and invited proposal revisions on July 8, 2011, with a common expectation of price reductions; Omniplex increased its revised pricing, unlike competitors.
- GAO denied Omniplex’s bid protest, and Omniplex then brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPM violated FAR 15.307(b) regarding final proposal revisions | Omniplex contends there was no common cut-off for FPRs and that discussions were not closed. | OPM’s letters constituted a request for revisions within discussions. | No clear violation; court finds FAR 15.307(b) not adhered to as to common cut-off date and clarity. |
| Whether OPM engaged in meaningful discussions under FAR 15.306(d) | OPM failed to meaningfully discuss Omniplex’s pricing and weaknesses. | OPM engaged in pricing-focused discussions to elicit revisions. | No prejudicial error; discussions identified pricing deficiencies; no substantial chance would have been created. |
| Whether OPM’s evaluation of Omniplex’s technical proposal was unreasonable | Omniplex claims irrational penalization for lacking IT pre-certification and training approvals. | Evaluation considered multiple factors; penalties were not irrational. | No unreasonable evaluation; court defers to agency’s technical judgments. |
| Whether Omniplex had standing to challenge post-award decision | Omniplex as incumbent bidder had substantial chance if errors corrected. | Standing established; Omniplex was an interested party. | Omniplex has standing; court proceeds to merits. |
| Whether prejudicial impact requires relief in post-award protest | If errors existed, Omniplex would have a substantial chance. | Even with violations, Omniplex would not have had a competitive price. | No relief; no substantial chance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubinsky v. United States, 43 F.3d 243 (Fed.Cl. 1999) (criteria for determining FPRs and closure of discussions; USAF letters not always FPRs)
- Cleveland Telecomms. Corp. v. Goldin, 43 F.3d 655 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (NASA letters can request BAFOs; need not use BAFO term)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (establishes when protest grounds show prejudice and rational agency decisionmaking)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (prejudice requirement in post-award bid protests; substantial chance standard)
- Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing agency decision under APA)
- Beta Analytics Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 395 (Fed.Cl. 2005) (great deference to technical evaluation determinations)
- Cont’l Bus. Enters., Inc. v. United States, 196 Ct.Cl. 627 (1983) (unusually heavy burden challenging technical determinations)