Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc. v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 371
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- RFQ/PWS solicited firm-fixed-price task order for electrical safety assessments/repairs in CENTCOM AOR; award based on technical approach (slightly more important), price, and past performance. Key personnel (including Project Manager) were designated as "Key deployed personnel."
- Project Manager PWS requirement: single designated PM who is a single point of contact, has 3 years project-management experience on similar programs, and a project-management certification; RFQ required key deployed personnel to have 5 years electrical experience, Secret clearance, and 1 year managing teams in remote environments.
- Sallyport proposed a split PM structure: James Johnston (meets certification/PM experience) CONUS; Kevin June (deployed onsite, lacked PM certification) as on-site PM. Agency rated Sallyport "Unacceptable" based on one deficiency (PM not a deployed individual meeting all requirements) and one weakness (alleged improper "recent" communications during a blackout period).
- exp Federal, the incumbent, proposed Khalil Al-Amin as PM with a "Master Certificate, Mastering Project Management" and was rated "Good" overall; awarded the contract on March 31, 2016.
- Sallyport filed GAO protest (later withdrawn), then sued in Court of Federal Claims. Court allowed supplementation limited to a declaration showing the communications occurred before the blackout period; others were denied. Cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether solicitation required a single, deployed Project Manager meeting all PM and key-personnel requirements | Sallyport: solicitation did not make deployment mandatory; dual-PM structure satisfied combined requirements | Government: solicitation unambiguously lists Project Manager among "Key deployed personnel" and PWS uses singular language indicating one deployed PM | Court: Agency reasonably interpreted solicitation to require a single deployed PM meeting all requirements; Sallyport's split-PM proposal was properly found deficient |
| Whether Sallyport improperly contacted agency during the blackout period | Sallyport: any contact occurred before the blackout period (supplemented Banks decl.) | Government: reasonable to interpret "recent" contact as within blackout period; treated as a weakness | Court: Agency's assumption was arbitrary (contact occurred before blackout), but error was harmless because the PM deficiency alone rendered proposal unacceptable, so no prejudice to Sallyport |
| Whether exp Federal's proposed PM met the solicitation's "Project Management certification from an accredited institution" requirement | Sallyport: Al-Amin's "Master Certificate" is not a required PM certification and therefore deficient | Government: solicitation did not require a specific certifying body; term "certification" can include a university-issued certificate; agency reasonably accepted resume evidence | Court: Agency reasonably concluded Al-Amin's "Master Certificate" satisfied the solicitation; Sallyport failed to show unreasonable evaluation |
| Whether errors in evaluation prejudiced Sallyport and require relief | Sallyport: combined errors (PM deficiency for exp Federal and agency miscues) deprived Sallyport of a substantial chance to win | Government: Sallyport was correctly eliminated; any other errors harmless; no prejudice | Court: No prejudice shown—Sallyport had no substantial chance because of the dispositive PM deficiency; government and intervenor judgments granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (APA review of procurement decisions is highly deferential)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard explained)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice requires showing a "substantial chance" of award absent errors)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (remand required when all bids found unacceptable)
- Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, 800 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (prejudice analysis where multiple bidders may be unacceptable)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, LP v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (patent ambiguity waiver rule for solicitation defects)
- Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 783 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (court determines whether procurement lacked rational basis or violated procedure)