The Informatics Applications Group, Inc. v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 519
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- DHA issued RFQ HT0011-17-R-0008 seeking quotes by Feb 13, 2017 via email to two designated POCs (Gina Walker and John Culmer); RFQ incorporated FAR provisions allowing exclusion of nonconforming offers.
- tiag submitted its quote on Feb 13, 2017 through the GSA eBUY Portal rather than emailing the designated POCs; it did not email the POCs as required.
- DHA did not discover tiag’s eBUY submission until March 7, 2017 when a contracting specialist logged into GSA Advantage; DHA then informed tiag that its quote was nonresponsive and excluded it from consideration.
- tiag requested reconsideration; DHA denied it and tiag filed a pre-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require evaluation of its quote.
- Court limited review to the administrative record, denied tiag’s motion to supplement the record, and resolved cross-motions under RCFC 52.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tiag’s quote conformed to RFQ submission requirements | tiag argued its eBUY submission was a valid electronic submission and should be accepted | DHA argued RFQ required email to named POCs and nonconforming offers may be excluded | Held: Nonconforming — tiag failed to submit to designated POCs; exclusion was reasonable |
| Whether DHA unreasonably reduced competition by excluding tiag | tiag relied on GAO precedent (AECOM) to say misdirected but discoverable submissions should be accepted | DHA showed it lacked contemporaneous knowledge of tiag’s submission until Mar 7, weeks after deadline | Held: No reduction of competition — DHA was not contemporaneously aware; AECOM inapplicable |
| Whether the government-control exception revives tiag’s submission | tiag argued DEA should treat eBUY submission as under government control | DHA argued exception only applies when submitted to government installation under its control; tiag’s submission was not to designated government POC | Held: Exception inapplicable — tiag did not submit to government installation/POC and exception does not apply |
| Whether administrative record should be supplemented with eBUY/email or post-hoc evaluation documents | tiag sought email notifications and evaluation materials to show when DHA became aware or how evaluation proceeded | DHA and Court argued record already showed March 7 discovery and later evaluations post‑date the exclusion decision, so additional documents would not fill a meaningful gap | Held: Denied — existing administrative record sufficient for APA review; supplementation unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limits on supplementing the administrative record)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standards for arbitrary and capricious review in procurement challenges)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1973) (judicial review focuses on the administrative record)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency action arbitrary and capricious if important aspects ignored or explanation runs counter to evidence)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (deference to agency decisions where a reasonable basis exists)