Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 228
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Tech Systems, incumbent for TRACEN tailoring, challenged USCG award to CHC for fitting, alteration, and garment pressing services under an IDIQ RFP set-aside for small business.
- RFP organized into Technical, Price, and Past Performance volumes; Technical capability more important than past performance, and combined non-price factors more important than price, with price potentially determining award when technical merit is equal.
- SSP established TET, PPT, and PET evaluations; SSA could rely on others’ analyses but maintain independent judgment; consensus-based technical evaluation followed by a Best Value tradeoff.
- Five proposals were received; after two rounds of discussions CHC and Tech Systems were deemed technically equal with low risk, CHC offered lower price, leading to CHC award over Tech Systems.
- Tech Systems alleged deficiencies in CHC’s QC, staffing, and loading planning as weaknesses, and alleged bias/bad faith by a COTR; matter expanded to include questions of prejudice and standing.
- Court sustained supplementation to the record to address bias claims, but ultimately denied Tech Systems’ bid protest and granted the government’s cross-motion; injunctive relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Tech Systems prejudiced standing-wise? | TSI would have had substantial chance but-for errors | Standing exists if prejudiced, but record shows no chance loss | Tech Systems established potential prejudice, but the court denied merit relief |
| Was the CHC award arbitrary and capricious based on evaluation? | Coast Guard misapplied evaluation; ratings inconsistent | SSA followed consensus TET; ratings justified by record | No arbitrary or capricious conduct; decision rational and supported by record |
| Did the Coast Guard properly handle price in the best value decision? | Price discussed inadequately; CHC price is unreasonable; reliance on price was improper | Price reasonably analyzed; discussions not required for price; best value justified | Best value tradeoff properly grounded; price used as determining factor where tech equal |
| Was the past performance evaluation reasonable given CHC's small-scale references? | CHCReferences not comparable in size/scope to PWS; evaluation flawed | Past performance judged for relevance; evaluator discretion broad | Past performance evaluation not arbitrary; deference to agency broadly applied |
| Did alleged bias/bad faith by a COTR taint the procurement? | Declarations show bias; taint remote beyond evaluation | Declarations insufficient to show influence; no direct evidence of impact | No clear and convincing evidence of bias affecting the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Overton Park, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (arbitrary and capricious review standard for agency decision)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (high deference to procurement evaluations; cannot substitute court judgment)
- USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 436 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (scrutinizes consensus-driven technical evaluations and SSA independence)
- Fort Carson, 71 Fed.Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (great deference to past performance evaluations)
- PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 520 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (great discretion in source selection in negotiated procurements)