Supplycore Inc. v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 480
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Air Force issued RFP FA8630-14.5-5030 for the PROS V services contract (ID/IQ; 5-year base + options; est. $4.2B). Evaluation: Technical Capability (pass/fail with Measures of Merit), Past Performance (adjectival confidence), and Price. Award = best value tradeoff between Past Performance and Price.
- Past Performance required up to three references per offeror and per subcontractor; each reference was rated for relevance and performance quality relative to the three technical subfactors (Process Performance, Program Management, Small Business Participation), then combined into an overall confidence rating.
- SupplyCore (plaintiff) submitted proposals and got an overall Past Performance rating of Satisfactory Confidence and the lowest evaluated price (~$4.007B). S&K (intervenor) received Substantial Confidence and a slightly higher evaluated price (~$4.010B).
- SSA performed a tradeoff and awarded to S&K, concluding the ~$3M price premium (0.073% of total contract value) was worth the higher Past Performance confidence over the life of the contract.
- SupplyCore protested at GAO (denied). Suit in Court of Federal Claims followed; cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; Court denied SupplyCore’s protest and sustained the award to S&K.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unstated evaluation criteria | Measures of Merit were applied to past performance but not disclosed; SupplyCore could have tailored its submission | RFP expressly tied Past Performance relevance/quality to the Technical Subfactors and Measures of Merit (Section M) | RFP adequately disclosed use of Measures of Merit in Past Performance; no unstated criteria |
| Inadequate discussions | FAR required discussions of weaknesses/adverse info; agency should have told SupplyCore it hadn’t addressed Measures of Merit | The solicitation disclosed the linkage; SupplyCore had no adverse ratings and even exceeded one Measure; no deficiency to disclose | No inadequate discussions; agency did not violate FAR 15.306(d) |
| S&K past performance ratings | Several of S&K’s "exceeded requirement" findings lack support and thus its Substantial rating is unreasonable | Agency relied on CPARs, POC questionnaires, and follow-up clarifications showing specific exceeded requirements | Agency’s detailed inquiries and documentation reasonably support the specific "exceeded" findings and overall Substantial rating |
| Price/tradeoff decision | Agency understated price difference by comparing to total contract rather than contractor-controlled portion; price advantage should have carried more weight | Agency understood both absolute and contractor-controlled differences and reasonably concluded the small premium justified higher confidence in performance | Tradeoff was within agency discretion and rational; court will not substitute its judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standing and interested party standard in bid protests)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard for procurement challenges)
- Redland Genstar, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 220 (Ct. Cl. 1997) (courts should not substitute their judgment for agency where evaluation is reasonable)