Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 218
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Orion filed a preaward bid protest alleging improper exclusion from a US Army procurement for support services at multiple Army installations and sought reinstatement after Amendment 7 announced discussions.
- The Army issued solicitation W9124J-11-R-0001, set aside for small businesses, seeking multiple IDIQ task orders with six to eight awards based on best value.
- Section L of the solicitation required full compliance with all terms, conditions, representations, and certifications; discussions could be held if necessary, but the emphasis was on best initial offers.
- Section M described evaluation factors (Mission Capability, Past Performance, Cost/Price) and required cost/price data, including teaming partner data, with a cost realism analysis and potential elimination for unreasonable or unrealistic pricing.
- Orion submitted a proposal on February 8, 2011; it identified eleven teaming partners, but five partners’ proprietary pricing data were not provided by the deadline, some provided late, and some data was incomplete or inconsistent.
- The Army conducted an initial screening and later informed Orion on April 8, 2011 that its offer would not be evaluated due to noncompliance with cost/price data, ODC allocation, and other deficiencies; no evidence shows Orion was notified of an accounting-system deficiency as a separate exclusion reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to protest preaward exclusion | Orion contends it had a direct economic interest and should be allowed to protest. | Orion lacked the requisite standing under §1491(b)(1) as no substantial chance or nontrivial injury could be shown preaward. | Orion lacks standing; case dismissed on standing grounds. |
| Rational basis for exclusion | The Army unreasonably excluded Orion despite potential evaluation with missing data. | Exclusion was rational due to failure to provide required teaming partner cost/price data and related deficiencies. | Army's exclusion had a rational basis; denial of relief on merits. |
| Reinstatement after Amendment 7 | The Army should reinstate Orion to the competition after Amendment 7 announced discussions. | Orion was excluded prior to evaluation and Amendment 7 did not cure that; reinstatement would be improper. | No standing to seek reinstatement; court declines merits on reinstatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (preaward standing requires nontrivial competitive injury that can be redressed)
- CS-360, LLC v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 488 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (weeks marine test sui generis in preaward; sometimes substantial chance not required)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (expedited review of administrative record; reliance on administrative decisions)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (arbitrary and capricious review; rational basis and discretion in procurement decisions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (standing framework for injury in fact and redressability (contextual to claims))