Allied challenges DOJ’s evaluation of proposals, where the Contracting Officer (“CO”) disqualified Allied from the competition based upon six exceptions that Allied took to DOJ’s Request for Quotation (“RFQ”). Allied alleges that the CO’s source selection decision was “fatally flawed,” and that his disqualification of Allied was “pretextual,” intended only to preclude a later bid protest. (Compl. 1.) Allied especially complains about the manner in which the agency performed the technical and past performance evaluations. Allied contends that DOJ conducted improper discussions and treated its proposal differently from Monster’s proposal, particularly in failing to disqualify Monster for similar noncompliance with the RFQ’s requirements. Allied requests declaratory and injunctive relief nullifying the award to Monster.
The Court considered this protest on an expedited basis. Defendant submitted a certified copy of the administrative record on March 1, 2010. Allied filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record and a motion to supplement the administrative record on March 5, 2010. On March 15, 2010, Monster filed its own motion to supplement the administrative record, and Defendant filed a response opposing Allied’s motion to supplement. On March 25, 2010, the Court granted in part Allied’s motion to supplement the record and denied Monster’s similar motion. Allied Tech. Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-120C, 2010 WL 1388162, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2010). On March 19, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Allied’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and, in the alternative, its response and cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record. Monster submitted its response and cross-motion on the same date. Allied filed a reply in support of its motion and opposition to the Government’s and Monster’s cross-motions on March 26, 2010. The Court heard oral argument on the parties’ motions on April 14, 2010.
For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Allied, as the only other offeror in this procurement, has standing to challenge DOJ’s contract award to Monster. Were the Court to hold otherwise, in circumstances where there are only two offerors, a procuring agency could insulate itself from review of an improper award simply by disqualifying the losing offeror. Applicable case law precludes such a result. Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Dyonyx, L.P. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 460, 467-69 (2008). Allied’s standing to sue particularly is warranted where the agency evaluated Allied’s proposal as if it were eligible for award, and only belatedly declared the proposal unacceptable. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Allied’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Related Categories: Administrative Law , Government / Politics
|Circuit Court Judge(s)|
|Plaintiff Lawyer(s)||Plaintiff Law Firm(s)|
|Frederick Claybrook||Crowell & Moring LLP|
|Lindsay Denault||Crowell & Moring LLP|
|James Peyster||Crowell & Moring LLP|
|Gunjan Talati||Crowell & Moring LLP|
|Defendant Lawyer(s)||Defendant Law Firm(s)|
|Jeanne Davidson||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Donald Kinner||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Michael O'Connell||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Tony West||U.S. Department of Justice|
|Intervenors Lawyer(s)||Intervenors Law Firm(s)|
|David Goodwin||Greenberg Traurig LLP|
|Richard Moorhouse||Greenberg Traurig LLP|
|Jacob Pankowksi||Greenberg Traurig LLP|
|Emily Parker||Greenberg Traurig LLP|