Red River Computer Co., Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 227
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- The Army issued RFP W52P1J-11-R-0171 (ITES-3H) for IDIQ IT hardware contracts; awards to at least eight offerors; Phase II evaluated Mission Support (weighted), Past Performance (more important than Price), and Price (not adjectively scored).
- Offerors had to show recent/relevant past performance (up to five references) and disclose any adverse performance; agency could use proposal data and other sources (e.g., CPARs).
- Red River submitted Phase II with five positive references and two self-reported adverse references; the agency independently located five additional adverse CPARs and rated Red River Limited Confidence (SSEB) then No Confidence (SSA) for Past Performance; Red River was excluded from the competitive range.
- Red River protested at GAO; GAO denied relief. Red River then filed in the Court of Federal Claims alleging irrational Past Performance rating, use of unstated criteria, unequal treatment, and failure to consider price in the competitive-range decision.
- The court applied APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, gave deference to agency judgments in best-value procurements, and examined whether SSA/SSEB relied on improper factors or committed prejudicial errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the SSA’s "No Confidence" past-performance rating improper? | SSA relied on a factual mistake (timing of five adverse CPARs) and an unstated criterion (penalizing non-self-reporting). | SSEB reasonably rated Limited Confidence; SSA’s downgrade errors did not prejudice Red River because SSEB’s rating alone would exclude it. | Court: SSA made at least one error (wording about timing and possibly considered non‑reporting improperly) but no prejudice; outcome stands. |
| 2. Unequal treatment compared to other offerors | Other offerors with similar issues received better ratings; Red River was singled out. | Differences reflect overall judgments about confidence; not every proposal must be treated identically. | Court: No demonstrable disparate treatment requiring relief; plaintiff’s comparisons do not show a clear unequal application of standards. |
| 3. Did agency fail to consider price in establishing the competitive range? | SSA established a price breakpoint and excluded Red River without meaningful price consideration. | SSA considered price but reasonably prioritized Past Performance and Mission Support given many better-rated proposals. | Court: Agency considered price appropriately; exclusion was rational in a best-value selection. |
| 4. Was assigning “Relevant” (vs. “Very Relevant”) to a SEWP IV reference improper? | SEWP IV was essentially identical and should be Very Relevant. | Relevance determinations are discretionary and the record supports "Relevant." | Court: Agency’s relevance rating was reasonable and any change would not have produced a Satisfactory rating to enter the competitive range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (standard for arbitrary and capricious review)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (2001) (prejudice required to set aside procurement action)
- Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324 (2004) (deference in best-value procurements)
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (2009) (prejudice and competitive-range relief standards)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 (1996) (prejudice requirement and significant-procurement-error standard)
- Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (limits on substituting court judgment for agency expertise)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (1996) (discretion in best-value tradeoffs)