Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Office Design Grp. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

March 6, 2020, Decided

2019-1337

Opinion

 [*1368]  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 RFP1 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  [*1369]  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.

951 F.3d 1366 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7012 **

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.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

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