Trace Sys. v. United States

Trace Sys. v. United States

Opinion

 [*693]  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SOMERS, Judge.

Plaintiff, Trace Systems, Inc., filed a bid protest in this Court on April 7, 2022, challenging the government's decision to cancel a solicitation for a communications technical support services contract and, as a result of that cancellation, the government's decision to cancel an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity task order awarded to Plaintiff. See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff additionally protests the government's decision to award a sole source contract to Defendant-Intervenor, General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. ("GDIT"). Id. Pursuant to the Court's initial scheduling order and a brief extension, the government filed the administrative record in this case on May 3, 2022. See ECF Nos. 39-42. [**2] 

In response to the filing of the administrative record, on May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion styled as a motion to compel and for leave to conduct discovery. ECF No. 45; see also ECF No. 46. Through its motion, Plaintiff seeks to have the government complete what Plaintiff views as an incomplete administrative record. According to Plaintiff, "[o]f the 22,838 pages submitted by the Government, a total of six pages are relevant to the protest." ECF No. 46 at 4. On May 19, 2022, in response to Plaintiff's motion and an order of the Court, the government "concluded that certain documents should be added to the previously-filed administrative record in this case." ECF No. 54 at 1. However, the government also argued in response that beyond the documents it was adding to the administrative record, "the Court should deny Trace's motion because much of the motion is focused on materials that are not properly part of the administrative record," id., and the government has "collected and included the documents that [the Defense Information Systems Agency ("DISA")] considered in making the challenged decision to cancel the solicitation and award the bridge [contract] to GDIT," id. at 14. In [**3]  addition, the government argued at length that it was not required to include pre-decisional or deliberative documents in the record and that the "breadth of [Plaintiff's] requests would include internal, predecisional, and deliberative agency documents . . . ." Id. at 1.

The addition of the documents to the administrative record on May 19th did not, according to Plaintiff, complete the record. Rather, Plaintiff asserts in reply that,

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.