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

Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

October 7, 2012, Filed under seal

No. 11-690 C

Opinion

 [*241]  OPINION AND ORDER1

Merow, Senior Judge.

Introduction

Reference is made to the background and procedural history of this procurement protest, involving a proposal to supply foreign language support services, detailed in the court's prior Opinion, which will not be repeated. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 644-48 (2011) (denying defendant's motion to dismiss and denying in part plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record).

Thereafter, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (AR). (ECF No. 78.) Cross-motions for Judgment on the AR were subsequently filed by intervenors Global Linguistic Solutions, LLC (GLS), Mission Essential Personnel, LLC (MEP) and defendant. (ECF Nos. 82, 84 & 85.) Oppositions and Replies were filed followed  [**3] by oral argument.

SAIC contends that the Army's ratings of its proposal at issue were arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent with stated evaluation criteria and in violation of law; the evaluation board either misunderstood, ignored or failed to read its proposal and applied the Solicitation standards unequally, treating SAIC's proposal more harshly than others, which lead, either singly or in combination, to its Unacceptable rating(s) and its below-the-award line ranking. SAIC does not contest the award of indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) 2 contracts to other companies submitting proposals in this procurement, but theorizes that absent these asserted errors, it too would have been awarded a contract.

Defendant and moving intervenors, IDIQ contract awardees, contend that the Army's procurement decisions were neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of statute or regulation, nor the product of disparate application of Solicitation terms. It is argued that the Army's determination not to award a contract to SAIC was coherently and rationally articulated, well within the parameters of the Army's discretion  [**4] and grounded in requirements of the Solicitation.

Solicitation Requirements

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.

108 Fed. Cl. 235 *; 2012 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1453 **

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, MISSION ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, LLC, LINC GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., GLOBAL LINGUISTIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, NORTHROP GRUMMAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC. and L-3 SERVICES, INC., Intervenor Defendants.

Subsequent History:  [**1] Reissued November 19, 2012.

Prior History: Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 644, 2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2440 (2011)

CORE TERMS

REDACTED, rating, linguists, Weakness, subcontractors, Subfactor, transition, offerors, management plan, proposals, Solicitation, Staffing, irrational, Unacceptable, contracts, Matrix, team, evaluated, volume, manage, personnel, procurement, quality control, processes, increases, resume, risks, customer, contends, contractor

Public Contracts Law, Bids & Formation, Sealed Bids, Bid Responsiveness, Competitive Proposals, Offer & Acceptance, General Overview, Contract Interpretation, Specifications, Types of Contracts, Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Jurisdiction, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Motions, Administrative Record, Rule Application & Interpretation, Abuse of Discretion, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Unlawful Procedures, Agency Adjudication, Decisions, Contents, Reviewability, Minor Informalities & Irregularities, Federal Government, Domestic Security, Military & Veterans Law, National Defense, Armed Forces, Organization, US Department of Defense, Remedies, Injunctions, Claims By & Against, Authority of Government Officers, Competency of Parties, Contracting Officers