Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 765

Background

Vanguard protests FEMAPA TAC III award in a multi‑award PA/architect‑engineer procurement; incumbents PA TAC II performance data were incomplete or absent; GAO and DHS OIG previously criticized FEMA’s management of PA TAC I–II; FEMA amended evaluation criteria and reevaluated past performance after protests; the record shows internal FEMA personnel (Lorine Boardwine) had roles spanning COTR and SEB; SSA rankings and tie-breakers were contested and subject to post‑hoc justification.
PA TAC III evaluated on five factors, with cost estimating/past performance central to dispute; VA incumbents’ PA TAC II performance information was not contemporaneously evaluated; PPQs were issued, but incumbents’ PPQs were not completed by FEMA personnel due to perceived conflict; GAO sustained parts of prior protests requiring reevaluation of past performance.
GAO and OIG criticisms of FEMA’s failure to evaluate incumbents’ PA TAC II performance informed ongoing court proceedings; the court ultimately denied Vanguard’s judgment, granting government cross‑motions and upholding the procurement decision despite acknowledged violations.
The court conducted de novo review of agency actions under the APA with substantial deference to agency judgments on complex procurement minutiae; the decision emphasized that violations did not demonstrably prejudice Vanguard given the existing record and alternative rankings.
The government located additional electronic records and the record includes multiple disclosed and redacted items; the parties supplemented the administrative record, and the court retained unresolved motions to correct the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FEMA violated procurement law by not evaluating PA TAC II incumbents' performance	Vanguard argues Subfactor 1(a) and Factor 4 required considering incumbents' PA TAC II performance.	FEMA contends past performance could be based on SF330 and PPQs and that incumbents’ data were not properly available.	Denied; court finds violations but no substantial prejudice shown.
Whether SSA’s rankings and tie-breakers were rational and complete	Vanguard claims SSA incomplete rankings violated rational evaluation.	SSA rankings were within discretionary judgment and did not prejudice integrity of process.	Denied; court finds SSA incomplete rankings but not prejudicial overall.
Whether weighting SF330s against PPQs was reasonable	SF330s and PPQs should not be equally weighted given PPQs are more objective.	Agency had legitimate reasons; PPQs alignment issues justify cautious weighting.	Denied; court finds weighting reasonable under the circumstances.
Did the challenged errors prejudice Vanguard	But‑for the errors, Vanguard would have had substantial chance to win.	Record does not show Vanguard would have won absent errors; other firms’ credentials favored incumbents.	Denied; court concludes Vanguard failed to show substantial chance of winning.
Should the record corrections affect the outcome			Not dispositive; corrections acknowledged but do not alter main holding.

Key Cases Cited

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (procurement errors require showing prejudice for relief)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (high deference to agency procurement decisions; rational basis required)
FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 F.3d 359 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (extreme deference to agency evaluative process in procurements)
E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (minutiae of procurement process left to procurement officials)
Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (rational basis and procedural compliance standard for awards)
Keeton Corrs., Inc. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standard for rational agency decision in procurement)
Line Gov’t Sols., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 672 (2006) (great deference to past performance evaluation methods)