Office Design Grp. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
March 6, 2020, Decided
Reyna, Circuit Judge.
Office Design Group appeals from an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the administrative record for the government and Cuna Supply, LLC. Because Office Design Group fails to establish that the government's evaluation of its proposal was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we affirm.
On May 5, 2017, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") issued five Requests for Proposals ("RFP") for the provision of healthcare furniture and [*2] related services for VA facilities. The five RFPs were essentially identical, except that each related to a separate geographic region. Each RFP contemplated awarding three to five contracts for indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, with each contract having a five-year base period and one five-year option period.
The RFP established that the VA would award contracts based on a best-value trade off selection process that considered three primary evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price. The VA deemed Technical Capability more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance more important than Price.
Central to this appeal is Technical Capability subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 specified that an offeror's technical proposal must include a narrative "addressing each of the items listed under SV1, SV2, SV3, and SV4 as defined" in the Statement of Work ("SOW"). J.A. 128. SV1, SV2, SV3, and SV4 are codes corresponding to the specific services and products sought by the RFP. Subfactor 3 also required an offeror to address eight "key" elements, which included an offeror's staffing plan, inventory and cataloging process, personnel experience and qualifications, [*3] and process used for warranty repairs.
Subfactor 3 also provided that the VA would evaluate each offeror's technical volume of its proposal, i.e., its "technical proposal," based on the offeror's ability "to meet all services as defined in the Statement of Work." The RFP noted that an "unacceptable" rating for any technical subfactor would result in an overall "unacceptable" technical proposal. An offeror with an unacceptable Technical Capability subfactor was ineligible for a contract award.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.
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7012 *; 951 F.3d 1366
OFFICE DESIGN GROUP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, CUNA SUPPLY, LLC, Defendants-Appellees GOVSOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant
Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18-cv-01147-RHH, Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.
proposals, offerors, awardees', subfactor, disparate treatment, disparately, evaluated, protestor, assigned, staff, prejudicial, procurement, Capability, healthcare, questions, protest, rating, score
Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Bids & Formation, Offer & Acceptance, Offers, Offer & Acceptance