Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Federal Claims
August 2, 2021, Filed Under Seal
[*90] OPINION AND ORDER
The work of our nation's esteemed special forces is quite understandably shrouded in secrecy. In contrast, the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") requires our procurement system to be open and transparent. The problem in this case is that the government [**2] treated a procurement to support the special forces — and conducted this extended bid protest litigation — as if both were clandestine missions. The result is a procurement record that raises more questions than it answers. Indeed, the administrative record demonstrates, if anything, that Plaintiff, Oak Grove Technologies, Inc. ("OGT"), was not treated with the fairness the FAR requires. Moreover, the Court has serious doubts about the integrity with which the procurement at issue was conducted.
In particular, in this post-award bid protest, OGT challenges the decision of Defendant, the United States, acting by and through the Department of the Army ("Army" or the "Agency"), to award the Special Operations Forces Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, Operations and Rehearsal IV ("SOF RAPTOR IV") contract to Defendant-Intervenor, F3EA, Inc. ("F3EA"). OGT contests that award as arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law, including provisions of the FAR. The parties filed motions for judgment on the administrative record pursuant to Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). The government also moved to dismiss OGT's complaint for lack of standing pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1).
For the reasons explained below, [**3] the Court DENIES the government's motion to dismiss, GRANTS OGT's motion for judgment on the administrative record, and DENIES the government's and the defendant-intervenor's respective cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. As a result, the Agency must fix this procurement.1
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
155 Fed. Cl. 84 *; 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1621 **
OAK GROVE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and F3EA, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.
Subsequent History: [**1] Reissued: August 16, 2021.
Sanctions allowed by Oak Grove Techs., LLC v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2392 (Fed. Cl., Nov. 3, 2021)
offerors, procurement, administrative record, solicitation, documents, allegations, teaming, protest, proposals, evaluated, volume, capability, corrective action, rating, contracting, past performance, orders, bid, contract award, conducting, contractor, unacceptable, parties, acquisitions, regulation, subfactor, injunctive relief, subcontractor, merits, investigate
Administrative Law, Agency Adjudication, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Public Contracts Law, Bids & Formation, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Jurisdiction, Motions, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Competency of Parties, Competitive Proposals, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Review of Initial Decisions, Business & Corporate Law, Joint Ventures, Management Duties & Liabilities, Types of Contracts, Cost Contracts, Abuse of Discretion, Authority of Government Officers, Contracting Officers, Legislation, Interpretation, Reviewability, Preclusion, Contract Interpretation, Specifications, Ambiguities & Contra Proferentem, Patent Ambiguities, Voiding Contracts, Conflicts of Interest, Agency Rulemaking, Rule Application & Interpretation, Remedies, Injunctions, Permanent Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Irreparable Harm, Military & Veterans Law, National Defense, Public Interest