Raytheon Company v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 135
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Raytheon challenges the Air Force’s corrective action following a GAO outcome prediction conference addressing Raytheon’s CTE1 TRL and IR&D cost- reductions.
- The Air Force awarded the 3DELRR EMD contract to Raytheon after a Best Value decision; Northrop and Lockheed protested the award at GAO.
- GAO's outcome prediction suggested the Air Force had to reopen discussions on TRL substantiation and IR&D cost allowability, prompting corrective action.
- Raytheon moved to strike a January 26, 2015 Memorandum for Record; Northrop moved to supplement the record with a declaration; the court ruled on both motions.
- The court denied Northrop’s motion to supplement the administrative record, granted Raytheon’s motion to strike, and denied Raytheon’s and Northrop’s judgments on the administrative record, while granting remaining cross-motions for judgment on the record.
- The court concluded the Air Force’s January 16, 2015 corrective action notice was rationally based on the GAO outcome-prediction, but its later TRL substantiation and IR&D discussions needed proper adherence to the solicitation and fair treatment of all offerors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of review of GAO recommendation | Raytheon argues rationality review should focus on GAO outcome-prediction grounds. | Air Force argues review extends to rationality of GAO’s recommendation and underlying decision. | Rationality of GAO recommendation is reviewable; court may examine the basis of the GAO recommendation. |
| Timeliness and weight of the January 26 memorandum | Memorandum is post-hoc and should be struck from the record. | Memorandum contemporaneous with decision and provides legitimate rationale. | Memorandum is post-hoc rationalization; strike from administrative record. |
| Supplementation of the administrative record | Northrop seeks declaration to supplement to enable meaningful review. | Supplementation unnecessary and inappropriate. | Denies Northrop’s motion to supplement; record sufficient for review. |
| Raytheon’s motion to strike | Document should be excluded as improper post-decision justification. | Document may remain with weight but not dispositive. | Grant Raytheon’s motion to strike the January 26 memorandum. |
| Corrective action tailored to cure solicitation noncompliance | Reopening TRL substantiation and IR&D discussions is overly broad. | Correction is necessary to remedy evaluation irregularities and ensure fair competition. | GAO-advised corrective action is rational; decision to reopen discussions is reasonable to cure defects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner Constr. Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rational basis review for agency corrective action)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (GAO recommendations and rational basis)
- Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 691 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (GAO recommendation rationality review on bid protests)
- Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 64 F.4th (Fed. Cl. 2005) (administrative record timing and post hoc rationalizations)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court 1973) (administrative record scope and agency decision timing)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice requirement in bid protests)