Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

AccelGov, LLC v. United States

AccelGov, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

January 31, 2023, Filed

No. 22-1433

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, AccelGov, LLC, filed this post-award bid protest challenging the General Services Administration's ("GSA") decision to award a task order to Defendant-Intervenor, Technical and Management Resources, Inc. ("TMR"), to provide information technology services to the Defense Commissary Agency ("DeCA"). AccelGov contends that GSA's award was arbitrary and capricious because the agency irrationally evaluated AccelGov's technical/management approach. It also argues that TMR's quote contained material misrepresentations regarding TMR's past experience. AccelGov requests that the Court enjoin performance of the task order award, disqualify TMR from consideration, and require GSA to perform another evaluation and issue a new [*2]  award decision.

Before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record and the Government's Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES AccelGov's Motion for Judgment, GRANTS the Government's and TMR's Cross-Motions, and DENIES the Government's Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Solicitation

GSA issued Request for Quote No. 47QFHA22Q0005 ("RFQ") on July 12, 2022, seeking proposals for the award of a task order for information technology support to be provided to DeCA. Admin. R. 519-20, ECF No. 25-1 (hereinafter "AR").2 Headquartered in Fort Lee, Virginia, DeCA manages and operates over 236 grocery stores worldwide with approximately 16,000 employees. AR 191. To support DeCA's operational and information technology objectives, the task order at issue required the contractor to provide "a wide range of services including personnel to support database administration, system administration and operation, system integration, software deployment, technical/customer support, configuration management, security, system tuning, hardware lifecycle management, help desk operations [*3]  and ticketing application administration." AR 576.

Per the RFQ, GSA would use four factors to evaluate quotes. These factors, in descending order of importance, were as follows: Factor 1 — Technical/Management Approach; Factor 2 — Past Experience; Factor 3 — Socio-Economic status; and Factor 4 — Price. AR 536-37. GSA would evaluate offerors under Factor 1 based on "their demonstrated understanding of the task order requirements, the adequacy of the proposed solution/approach, the quality and completeness of their technical solutions to these objectives, and the overall qualifications and skill mix of the contractor workforce proposed to address these task order objectives." AR 539. Upon such evaluation, GSA would ascribe to each offeror a rating under Factor 1 using the following scheme:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2023 U.S. Claims LEXIS 109 *; __ Fed.Cl. __

ACCELGOV, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.

Subsequent History: Re-issued: February 17, 2023 [*1] 1

CORE TERMS

weakness, offerors, personnel, Incumbent, argues, field service, tasks, administrative record, key personnel, assign, indistinguishable, rating, protest, irrational, protestor, unequally, material misrepresentation, Team, bid, procurement, proposals, Cross-Motions, contractor, staffing, on-site, travel, substantial chance, supplementation, certifications, Integrated

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Administrative Law, Agency Adjudication, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Jurisdiction, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Bids & Formation, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Motions, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Administrative Record, Disclosure & Discovery, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Federal Questions, Well Pleaded Complaint Rule, Competitive Proposals, Appeals, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Pleading & Practice, Motion Practice, Content & Form, Opposing Memoranda, Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Balance of Hardships, Remedies, Permanent Injunctions