Protest challenging vendor’s exclusion from the competition is sustained. The government excluded the protester finding that a network device it proposed did not meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements of 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. The court, however, found that criteria were not really “minimum” requirements. The solicitation only stated that the device that had to be “capable of supporting” 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. The RFQ had not stated this was a “minimum” requirement, which has a different meaning than “capable of supporting.” While the protester's device did not have 6TB of storage or 32GB of RAM, it was “capable of supporting” such requirements.
The General Services Administration issued an RFQ seeking to award multiple blanket purchase agreements for a variety of information technology products. The RFQ required vendors to quote prices for, among other things, an Advanced Secure Web Gateway Device (ASWGD). The RFQ stated that the ASWGD had to be “capable of supporting” 6TB of disk drive storage and 32MB RAM.
Blue Tech, Inc. submitted a quotation as the lead of a contractor teaming arrangement. For the ASWGD, Blue Tech proposed a device with 8TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. During exchanges with Blue Tech, GSA, without specifying the ASWGD, advised Blue Tech that it had proposed items that exceeded the minimum salient characteristics, and that its quotation could be more competitive if the excesses were removed.
In response to the exchanges, Blue Tech submitted a revised quote with a new ASWGD. Instead of 8TB of storage and 32BG of RAM, the new ASGWD only had 3TB of storage and 24GB of RAM. GSA, however, disqualified Blue Tech from the further consideration, finding that its ASWGD did not meet the minimum requirements.
Blue Tech filed a protest with the Court of Federal of Claims challenging its exclusion. Blue Tech argued that the RFQ only required an ASWGD “capable of supporting” 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM; it did not require a device that actually had 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. Blue Tech had proposed a device that was capable of supporting 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM, so it complied with the RFQ.
The government disputed Blue Tech’s interpretation of the requirement. The government contended that the “capable of supporting” language in the RFQ actually referred to the “minimum” requirements for the ASWGD. In other words, the device had to have 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM.
The court found that Blue Tech’s interpretation of the requirement was reasonable. When the solicitation called for a minimum requirement, it used the word “minimum.” But the language for the ASWGD only called for a device “capable of supporting.” Had the government intended the ASWGD to have minimum amount of storage and RAM, it would have used the word “minimum.” It was clear from the RFQ that the terms “capable of supporting” and “minimum” had distinct meanings.
The government argued that Blue Tech’s interpretation produced an absurd result. If vendors only had to propose a device “capable of supporting,” then vendors could have proposed a device with no disk storage and no memory, so long as it was capable of supporting 6TB of storage and 32GB of memory. The court, reasoned that while the government may not have intended it, the solicitation actually permitted such a result. Nothing in the solicitation precluded offerors from proposing an ASWGD with no storage and no RAM. Indeed, the minimum characteristics for the ASWGD applied only to the device, not specifically to the disk drives and RAM.
The government also argued that Blue Tech’s interpretation conflicted with the dictionary definition of “capable” as “having attributes . . . required for performance.” But the court did not see how this helped the government. Blue Tech’s device actually had attributes necessary to support 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. Moreover, the dictionary further defines “capable” as “having traits conducive to features permitting something.” Blue Tech’s ASWGD satisfied this definition; it had features “permitting” it to support 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM.
The government noted that it asked the manufacturer of Blue Tech’s device whether the device was capable of meeting the minimum requirements, and that the manufacturer had responded that it was not capable of supporting 6TB of storage and 32MB of RAM. But the court noted that the government had not actually asked whether the device as “capable of supporting” 6TB of storage and 32MB of RAM. Rather, the government had asked if the device had “a minimum of 6TB SAS and 32GB RAM." The manufacturer correctly answered that the device Blue Tech quoted did not have those characteristics; it did not say that the device was incapable of supporting 6TB or storage and 32GB of RAM. Thus, the response from the manufacturer was not helpful in interpreting the RFQ.
The government further argued that for other items in the RFQ with minimum characteristics, Blue Tech had proposed items that met the minimum characteristics. Thus, the government concluded, Blue Tech had to know that the ASWGD required 6TB of storage and 32GB of RAM. The government cited several items in the RFQ with the minimum requirements that Blue Tech had satisfied. But the court noted that the government’s arguments assumed that for each of these items Blue Tech could have quoted an item that did not meet the minimum requirements but could after an upgrade. The government had not identified any devices, however, that Blue Tech could have quoted that would have satisfied the requirements with an upgrade.
Having found that Blue Tech’s interpretation of the RFQ was reasonable the court found that the government’s interpretation was unreasonable. The court reiterated that if GSA had intended the ASWGD to have a minimum of 6TB of storage and 32MB, it could have used the word minimum instead of “capable of supporting.” Moreover, the court continued, even if the government’s interpretation of the RFQ was reasonable, it would merely mean that the RFQ contained a latent ambiguity—i.e., two reasonable interpretations—which would be construed against the government as the drafter.
The court concluded by finding that Blue Tech was entitled to injunctive relief. The company had succeeded on the merits. It had been deprived of an opportunity to compete and thus shown harm. Moreover, this harm to Blue Tech outweighed any harm to government. Blue Tech only sought to enjoin awards pending a reevaluation of proposals. The government could likely reevaluate quickly.
Blue Tech is represented by Paul F. Khoury, Brian G. Walsh, Cara L. Lasley, Sarah B. Hansen, and Adam R. Briscoe of Wiley Rein LLP. Intervenor Telos Corporation is represented by C. Peter Dungan, Roger V. Abbott, and Jarrod R. Carman of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Intervenor Red River Technology is represented by Gregory R. Hallmark, Amy L. Fuentes, and Kelsey M. Hayes of Holland & Knight LLP. The government is represented by Reta E. Bezak, Brian M. Boynton, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy, Catherine Parnell, and Bret Vallacher of the Department of Justice as well as Jaron E. Chriss of the General Services Administration.
COFC - Blue Tech