T.W. Laquay Marine, LLC v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 748
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- USTRANSCOM issued an LPTA solicitation (Sept. 2015, amended Oct. 2015) for tug/barge fuel transport in Gulf/Lower Mississippi; award intended to lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror if price fair and reasonable.
- Three offers were received (JAR, T.W. LaQuay, and a third); initial technical evaluations rated all proposals Unacceptable, prompting evaluation notices and discussions with all offerors.
- After discussions and Final Proposal Revisions, USTRANSCOM found LaQuay and JAR acceptable; JAR (lowest acceptable after process) received the award in Jan. 2016.
- LaQuay protested at GAO (dismissed) and then sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging: improper deviation from FAR LPTA procedures (FAR §§1.4, 15.101-2), use of unstated evaluation criteria (FAR §15.303(b)(4)), failure to select best value (FAR §15.303(b)(6)), and that the agency’s evaluation was irrational.
- The court addressed jurisdiction and standing (LaQuay found an interested party and prejudiced), timeliness of solicitation challenges, whether agency deviated from FAR, whether evaluation notices sought unstated criteria, and whether the award lacked a rational basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of challenge to alleged FAR deviation (FAR §§1.4, 15.101-2) | LaQuay: Solicitation effectively altered LPTA rules (latent ambiguity); challenge timely post-award | Gov: Challenge waived because plaintiff had opportunity pre-close; solicitation unambiguous about discretion to conduct discussions | Court: Claim untimely; solicitation unambiguous and LPTA permits exchanges/discussions. |
| Whether USTRANSCOM improperly deviated from FAR LPTA procedures by conducting discussions | LaQuay: Agency replaced required LPTA procedures without authorization and thereby prejudiced LaQuay | Gov: Solicitation reserved right to conduct discussions (incorporated FAR 52.212-1(g)); agency did not deviate | Court: No improper deviation; FAR/LPTA allow exchanges and solicitation preserved discussions. |
| Whether evaluation notices imposed unstated evaluation criteria (FAR §15.303(b)(4)) | LaQuay: Notices sought information beyond solicitation, making initial Unacceptable rating unreasonable | Gov: Notices requested clarification/documentation tied to PWS and solicitation requirements | Court: Notices sought information squarely related to solicitation/PWS requirements; no improper unstated criteria. |
| Whether award lacked rational basis / agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously | LaQuay: Initial Unacceptable ratings were unsupported; evaluations misread LaQuay’s proposal and permitted competitors to cure deficiencies | Gov: Agency reasonably requested substantiating documentation; discretion and deference apply, especially in sensitive military procurement | Court: Agency provided coherent, reasonable explanations; evaluation and award not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers Investigative & Security Servs. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.) (standing requires actual/prospective bidder and direct economic interest)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir.) (interpretation of "interested party" under CICA)
- Distrib. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (elements of interested party test)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (prejudice standard in procurement protests)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.) (patent solicitation errors must be raised before bid close or are waived)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (rational-basis review of procurement decisions)