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

Red River Computer Co. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

February 27, 20151, Re-filed

No. 14-1092C


 [*229]  BRUGGINK, Judge.

This action is brought pursuant to the court's bid protest jurisdiction. Plaintiff, Red River Computer Co., Inc., an unsuccessful offeror for an information technology ("IT") supply contract, alleges that the United States Department of the Army (hereinafter the "agency," or "army"), through its Rock Island Contracting Center, acted arbitrarily when it excluded plaintiff from the competitive range. The parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. Those motions are fully briefed. Oral argument was held on February 3, 2015. Because defendant did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise in violation of the law, we deny plaintiff's motion and grant defendant's motion.


On September 25, 2012, the agency issued the "Information Technology [**2]  Enterprise Solutions-3 Hardware" ("ITES-3H") Solicitation W52P1J-11-R-0171 (hereinafter the "Solicitation" or "RFP") to furnish the agency with IT equipment and solutions at a reasonable price. Administrative Record ("AR") 72-74. The agency plans to award to at least eight offerors under an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity ("IDIQ") contract with up to four awards reserved for small businesses. It reserves the right to make no awards or more than eight awards.

The ceiling cost for the ITES-3H project is $5 billion over a five-year period of performance, which consists of a base period of three years and two one-year agency options. Each offeror is guaranteed a minimum of $10,700 in orders under the IDIQ contract.

The army is utilizing a two-phase evaluation process for the acquisition. The first phase has been completed, and the agency is currently conducting the second phase. Phase I required bidders to demonstrate their capabilities in supplying commercial IT hardware in compliance with the operating environment. The agency evaluated the Phase I proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and eliminated any offerors that failed to receive an acceptable rating. As a result of [**3]  the Phase I evaluation, 39 out of 50 initial offerors were invited to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II proposals consist of information regarding managerial and technical capability, track record of handling similar projects, and the price proposed for the work. Eight of the offerors that moved on to Phase II were large businesses, and the remaining 31 offerors, including plaintiff, were small businesses.

Phase II is a best value tradeoff process in which offerors with proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the agency are awarded a contract. The agency's decision is made based on its assessment of a set of factors and subfactors set forth in the solicitation. The first factor, Mission Support, is the most important of the three main factors. The second factor, Past Performance, is more important than the last, Price. Price is important, the solicitation states, but the non-price factors combined are significantly more important than Price. The solicitation provides that Price will be evaluated but not rated.

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.

120 Fed. Cl. 227 *; 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 189 **



offerors, rating, past performance, references, solicitation, Confidence, contracts, no confidence, proposals, performance issue, subfactors, protest, Phase, self-reported, army, assigned, evaluated, last year, downgraded, magnitude, factors, unequal, argues, prices, administrative record, weaknesses, performance rating, small business, key personnel, late delivery

Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, General Overview, Bids & Formation, Competitive Proposals