Telos Corporation v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 573
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Telos Corporation lost a bid protest after the award of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) task order to NetCentrics; Telos sought injunctive relief and lost in the Court of Federal Claims.
- After the court denied Telos’s motion for judgment and injunctive relief, Telos moved under RCFC 62(c) for an injunction pending appeal.
- RCFC 62(c) injunctions are extraordinary and have rarely (if ever) been granted by this court; the movant bears the burden to satisfy four factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, injury to others, public interest).
- Telos raised four primary merits arguments on appeal: (1) misapplication of the APA review standard and inadequate explanations for not awarding strengths; (2) unequal treatment in evaluations; (3) insufficient experience of NetCentrics’ proposed AMHS expert; and (4) inadequate explanation that NetCentrics’ staffing was sufficient.
- The court found the award decision reasonably explained and supported for post-award APA review under the streamlined FSS procedures, and concluded Telos failed to show a substantial case on the merits or the other factors favoring an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate APA review standard for post-award FSS procurement | Telos: agency must bear burden to show rational basis and must explain why features were not strengths | Gov: review is of the award decision; FSS streamlined documentation limits required explanation; plaintiff bears burden | Court: Telos wrong; award decision was rational and adequately supported under FSS rules; no substantial case on this ground |
| Unequal treatment in evaluation | Telos: NetCentrics received unexplained significant strengths while Telos was denied similar treatment | Gov: evaluations differ in substance; record shows consistent treatment and reasons | Court: examples fail to show inconsistency; no substantial case for unequal treatment |
| Qualifications of NetCentrics’ AMHS expert | Telos: proposed expert lacked personal responsibility for architecture/deployment and thus did not have required "direct experience" | Gov: record shows sufficient direct experience working with systems and personnel to satisfy requirements | Court: agency reasonably found experience met requirements; Telos fails to show unreasonableness |
| Adequacy of NetCentrics’ proposed staffing explanation | Telos: agency should have explained adequacy of staffing by task per FAR §8.405-2(d) | Gov: evaluators considered level of effort and task-specific staffing; FSS streamlined process does not require detailed task-by-task explanation | Court: record shows evaluators considered labor mix and tasks; Telos’s reliance on inapposite GAO precedent unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stay/injunction pending appeal factors and substantial-case-on-the-merits concept)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (APA review; contemporaneous record may be supplemented in some circumstances)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (administrative decisions must be explained when statute imposes special duties)
- Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (summary judgment principles do not apply to bid-protest record review; plaintiff bears burden)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (contracting officer responsibility determinations and review)
- Akima Intra-Data, LLC v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 25 (2015) (RCFC 62(c) injunction described as extraordinary; injunction pending appeal standards)
- RLB Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 681 (2015) (application of injunction-pending-appeal factors in bid protest context)
- USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 436 (2010) (courts may verify that objective elements in evaluations correspond to record and check for inconsistent subjective judgments)
- InSpace 21 LLC v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 69 (2016) (agency need not explain every adequacy determination; evaluation must support selection decision)