Trident Technologies, LLC v. United States
21-2035
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 1, 2022Background
- The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issued Solicitation HQ0147-18-R-0009 to procure a single contractor to operate and maintain the Advanced Research Center (ARC), providing infrastructure, O&M, cybersecurity, and test-asset management for missile defense modeling and testing.
- Four offerors responded (Oct 2018); after rounds of evaluations, discussions, and a 2019 GAO protest challenging organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), the agency conducted an OCI investigation and took corrective action, narrowing the final competitive range to Trident (plaintiff) and DTechLogic (intervenor-defendant).
- The procurement involved complex OCI inquiries regarding DTechLogic’s joint-venture members/subcontractors (work on GMD and other contracts) and multiple rounds of proposal revisions and reopened discussions in 2020–2021 to resolve discrepancies.
- The agency evaluated proposals on six factors (initial three pass/fail; then Technical, Contract & Program Management, and Cost/Price), performed mitigation for identified OCIs, and awarded the contract to DTechLogic in August 2021.
- Trident filed a post-award protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the agency’s OCI evaluation/mitigation, alleged unequal discussions, inconsistent application of evaluation criteria, and the reasonableness of the best-value tradeoff.
- The court denied Trident’s motion and granted judgment for the Government and DTechLogic, concluding the agency’s OCI handling, discussions, technical evaluation, and best-value decision were reasonable and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Agency reasonably evaluated and mitigated DTechLogic's OCIs | DTechLogic’s JV members/subcontractors (e.g., Davidson, nLogic) created impaired-objectivity and unequal-access OCIs; mitigation was inadequate; nondisclosures required disqualification | Contracting officer thoroughly investigated, documented determinations, and crafted mitigation; alleged facts are speculative, not "hard facts" of OCI | Court: Agency acted rationally; plaintiff failed to show hard facts or unreasonable mitigation; claim denied |
| 2. Unequal discussions/coaching | MDA issued evaluation notices that effectively coached DTechLogic to reduce cost realism adjustments while Trident was left without similar guidance, prejudicing Trident | Notices addressed a discrete discrepancy in DTechLogic’s proposal (omitted clause); reopening discussions was to ensure meaningful, tailored discussions—not impermissible coaching | Court: Record supports agency explanation; reopening and notice were reasonable and not disparate coaching; claim denied |
| 3. Inconsistent application of evaluation criteria / disparate treatment | Agency applied criteria inconsistently (e.g., rated same approach differently across subfactors) and failed to account for Trident’s revisions, producing arbitrary evaluations | Agency reasonably applied different subfactors to different aspects of proposals, documented rationale, and considered Trident’s revisions; disagreements are not proof of irrationality | Court: Evaluation was rationally explained and documented; differences amount to disagreement, not arbitrary treatment; claim denied |
| 4. Best-value determination unreasonable / prejudicial | Award relied on flawed technical ratings (and unmitigated OCIs); but-for errors Trident would have prevailed | Agency documented tradeoff, judged DTechLogic’s program management superior and cost/pricing realistic; plaintiff failed to show prejudice or that agency’s tradeoff lacked reasoned basis | Court: Best-value tradeoff was reasonable and supported by record; plaintiff failed to show substantial chance of award absent asserted errors; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (defines "interested party" and clarifies standing in bid protests)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (two-step bid-protest review: administrative-record review then prejudice analysis)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (Agency decisions reviewed for rational connection to facts; court will not substitute its judgment)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (scope of arbitrary-and-capricious review under APA)
- PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (protester must produce "hard facts" to show OCI determination arbitrary)
- Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reiterating need for hard facts to support OCI claims)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prejudice standard: substantial chance of award but for error)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (prejudice requirement explained)
- Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (standard emphasizing deference to contracting officers)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (agency discretion in best-value tradeoffs)