A protester challenged the best value determination. The COFC found the argument persuasive. The best value determination was too glib. The best value assessment must do more than simply state that a higher-priced awardee has a superior proposal. The agency must explain why it’s willing to pay more for that proposal.
AccelGov, LLC and SLICOM JV v. United States, COFC Nos. 23-693C, 23-720C, and 24-493C
- Engineering Degree – One of the protesters alleged the awardee’s proposed engineer lacked the required experience. Specifically, the protester argued the proposed engineer could not count as engineering experience obtained before receiving a bachelor’s degree in engineering. The COFC rejected the argument. Nothing in the solicitation stated that engineering experience could only be acquired after a degree. At most, the protester had identified a patent ambiguity in the engineering requirements that should’ve been challenged in a pre-award protest.
- Environmental Design Training – One of the protesters argued the agency should not have assessed the awardee a strength for Environmental Design training. The protester contended only accreditation, not training, merited a strength. But the solicitation required neither training nor accreditation. Thus, the agency was free to assign a strength for mere training.
- Best Value Tradeoff – One of the protesters complained that the best value determination had not adequately explained why the awardee’s superior proposal merited a higher price. The court found this argument compelling. A best value determination must do more than reference the technical superiority of a proposal. Rather, the decision must explain why the government agreed to pay more for technical superiority. Here, the agency agreed to a remand to provide the required explanation.
AccelGov is represented by W. Brad English, Jon D. Levin, Emily J. Chancey, and Taylor R. Holt of Maynard Nexsen. SLICOM is represented by Cara Lyn Sizemore, Lisa M. Rechden, and Vaibhavi Patria of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor is represented by Aron C. Beezley and Lisa A. Markman of Bradely Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The government is represented by John Hugh Roberson, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Douglas K. Mickle of the Department of Hust and by Mary Sena of the Department of Defense.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
