Qwest Government Services, Inc., D/B/A/ Centurylink Qgs v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 24
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- DOI issued an IDIQ solicitation (Sol. No. D12PS00316) for cloud computing across seven technical service lines (storage, secure file transfer, virtual machines, database hosting, web hosting, dev/test hosting, SAP hosting) with fixed-price per unit pricing and Day‑1 task orders and representative use cases in Section J.
- Offerors were to submit technical, business management, and price proposals; non-price factors were significantly more important than price but price would decide among technically equal offers.
- The solicitation included demand ranges ("From/To" quantities) for virtual machines and database servers, four storage classes (Class A–D, with D = 0), pricing worksheets, and an obvious mathematical error allocating 110% across three storage classes.
- CenturyLink protested, arguing the RFP was vague (insufficient storage/quantity data), the 110% allocation made allocations impossible, and evaluation criteria were unreasonable; GAO denied CenturyLink’s protest and DOI proceeded with awards (subject to limited stay of task orders).
- CenturyLink filed a preaward protest in the Court of Federal Claims; the court reviewed cross‑motions on the administrative record and heard oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFP provided adequate requirements for virtual machine storage and quantities | RFP failed to state agency's actual storage needs and provided overly broad VM ranges, preventing intelligent, equal competition | DOI provided performance parameters, OS mix, storage class definitions, and From/To VM quantities; offerors expected to use commercial judgment for IDIQs | Court held DOI provided best available information; agency reasonably relied on offerors' business judgment for IDIQ uncertainties — claim denied |
| Whether the 110% storage allocation error invalidated the solicitation | 110% allocation made storage distribution impossible and irrational, prejudicing competition | Error was obvious, de minimis, and easily corrected by offerors (scale percentages or adjust one class); no offerors queried it during Q&A | Court held the error was de minimis and insufficient to set aside the procurement |
| Whether RFP omitted sufficient detail for database and storage representative use cases | RFP did not specify server counts, per‑server storage, or allocation across classes leading to unequal proposals | DOI supplied ranges, performance characteristics, current environment data, and again reasonably relied on bidders to fill gaps | Court held DOI provided adequate best‑available information; challenges waived when raised only in reply and in any event meritless |
| Whether price/unit‑of‑service metric prevents meaningful price comparison | "Unit of Service" definition allowed arbitrary units, preventing uniform price comparisons | Unit of service was time‑based (min, hr, day, wk, mo, other), DOI would convert units to common basis, and Amendment 3 further standardized system counts | Court held price evaluation method was reasonable and allowed meaningful comparisons |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing agency procurement judgments under the Administrative Procedure Act)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency action must not be arbitrary or capricious)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (RCFC 52.1 review is based on the administrative record)
- Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 568 (Ct. Cl. 2011) (agency may provide best available information and rely on bidders' business judgment for IDIQs)
- Linc Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 672 (Ct. Cl. 2010) (price evaluation methods for IDIQs may be reasonable given indeterminate needs)
- FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 189 (Ct. Cl. 2012) (RFP must provide sufficient detail to compete intelligently but need not eliminate contractor risk)
- State of N.C. Bus. Enters. Program v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 354 (Ct. Cl. 2013) (requiring offerors to assume reasonable risk from quantity uncertainty is not arbitrary)