Science Applications International Corp. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 644
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- SAIC filed a post-award protest challenging INSCOM's decision not to award SAIC the DLITE IDIQ contract and to award six contracts to other offerors; the six awardees intervened.
- Following the Administrative Record (AR) filing, SAIC sought completion of the AR and there were responses and motions to dismiss by the agency and intervenors.
- The RFP (Dec 2, 2010) sought worldwide linguistic support under the DLITE program with Force Projection IDIQ contracts to be competed among selected contractors; up to $7.76B in task orders were contemplated.
- SAIC’s proposal was rated “unacceptable” in the Management category, leading to a finding that SAIC was not eligible for award; six other offerors were awarded IDIQ contracts.
- SAIC debriefed on July 7, 2011, filed an agency-level protest, and eventually filed this protest in October 2011; the court partially denied supplementing the AR and denied standing dismissals without prejudice, denying SAIC’s request to include the awardees’ proposals in the AR while allowing evaluator worksheets to be added.
- The court noted that the protest concerns are not merits determinations at this stage and that review focuses on standing and AR completeness, with merits to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAIC has standing to protest | SAIC had substantial chance but was prejudiced by improper evaluation. | SAIC’s proposal was unacceptable; no substantial chance to win. | DENIED: SAIC has standing; prejudice analysis remains a threshold jurisdictional issue. |
| Whether the AR should be supplemented with awardees’ proposals | Proposals of awardees were relied upon by the agency and should be in the AR for complete review. | Chenery doctrine requires reviewing court to focus on grounds invoked by agency; six proposals not relied upon need not be added. | DENIED: six proposals added only as to surviving evaluator worksheets; otherwise not included. |
| Whether the court should address merits at this stage or defer | Evaluation errors and alleged unequal treatment show possible merit to the protest. | Proceedings should defer merits review; standing and AR completeness must be resolved first. | TRIAGE: Court confines ruling to standing and AR issues; merits to be addressed in later proceedings. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the agency’s evaluation under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) | Jurisdiction exists to review procurement decisions; improper evaluations undermine award decisions. | Jurisdiction limited to eligibility and prejudice; no direct merit review at this stage. | REJECTED: Court recognizes jurisdiction but limits its scope to standing and AR completeness at this stage. |
| Whether the government’s use of an adjectival rating system is reviewable at this stage | SAIC challenges the rational basis of SAIC’s “unacceptable” rating and related evaluative methodology. | Rating and methodology are discretionary; no immediate merits review. | MINIMAL: Ruling emphasizes preliminary nature of the challenge; merits review will follow in AR proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (establishes that review must focus on grounds invoked by the agency)
- Night Vision Corp. v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 368 (Fed.Cl. 2005) (limited, Allegational prejudice used for standing)
- Linc Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 672 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (distinguishes standing from merits; intertwined issues)
- Magnum Opus Techs., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 512 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (standing requires threshold prejudice; merits review distinct)
- Information Technology & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (standing and prejudice standards in procurement protests)