Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 644
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Air Force issued RFP for B-52/B-1 (typo B-51 in opinion) aircrew training requiring facility security clearance (FCL); Sonoran awarded after SPG lacked FCL.
- SPG protested; Air Force took corrective action and referred SPG’s responsibility to the SBA; SBA initially said it could not decide because award had been made, then later issued a Certificate of Competency (COC) for SPG after SPG obtained an FCL.
- Air Force terminated Sonoran’s contract and awarded to SPG based on the COC; Sonoran filed this bid protest challenging the Air Force’s action.
- Sonoran moved to supplement the Administrative Record (AR) seeking SBA-related materials (including FOIA-requested documents); court previously allowed a limited deposition of Capt. Sidor but denied deposition of SBA rep because Sonoran did not directly challenge the SBA’s COC.
- The Government voluntarily added a January 30, 2017 email exchange between the SBA and Air Force to the AR; that exchange raised questions about prior communications and an alleged agreement between SBA and the Air Force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AR should be supplemented with SBA/related documents referenced in January 30 email | Sonoran: all documents in Government's possession about SBA COC are necessary for full understanding of Air Force decision to take corrective action | Government: SBA reasoning is irrelevant; already provided what was necessary and should limit supplementation | Granted in part: Government must produce communications specifically referenced in the Jan 30 email; broad request denied |
| Whether privileged or other materials referenced must be produced or submitted in camera | Sonoran: wants full disclosure of referenced documents | Government: may assert privilege or withhold irrelevant materials | If materials are claimed privileged, Government must submit them in camera with privilege log by deadline |
| Whether Capt. Sidor’s deposition may be replaced by an affidavit | Sonoran: sought deposition earlier; court granted limited deposition | Government: requested substitution of affidavit for deposition | Denied: court reaffirmed need for limited deposition of Capt. Sidor |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway & Co., PLLC v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 381 (2009) (court examines administrative record to determine support for agency action)
- AshBritt, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 344 (2009) (supplementation of administrative record should be rare; background on limiting review to original administrative record)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (supplementation allowed only when necessary for complete understanding)
- Murakami v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 731 (2000) (parties’ ability to supplement administrative record is limited)
- Am. Ordnance LLC v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 199 (2008) (AR supplementation appropriate when needed for full and complete understanding)