The protester argued the agency improperly found that all the offerors were within competitive range and thus eligible for discussions. The record did not contain any analysis of how or why the offerors were in the competitive range. COFC concluded the contracting officer did not determine which proposals were “the most highly rated” as the FAR required. Consequently, the entered judgment for the protester.
Gemini Tech Services, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 24-1494
- Protest – The protester challenged the award of a task order for “logistics support services” at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. It claimed the Army improperly opened discussions by erroneously determining all six initial offerors were within competitive range. According to the protester, the Army relied on incorrect facts and otherwise ignored the terms of the solicitation.
- Competitive Range – FAR 15.306(c)(1) dictates that a contracting officer (CO) must establish a competitive range if they intend to open discussions with offerors. This meant the Army’s CO was required to rate proposals according to technical acceptability and determine which proposals were “the most highly rated” against that factor. The record did not contain any analysis of how or why the offerors included in the Army’s competitive range were considered the most highly rated against the technical acceptability factor. The Army explained it was in its best interest to increase the number of eligible offerors in order to secure a competitive procurement. While this might have been a reasonable basis, the Court found that the FAR required more.
- Conclusion – The Court found the error prejudiced the protester because the awardee was the only offeror who had no potential to be technically acceptable. It therefore could not have been among “the most highly rated.” COFC thus granted the protester permanent injunction and granted its motion for judgment. The Army was ordered to reevaluate proposals in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1).
The protester was represented by Matthew T. Schoonover, Ian P. Patterson, and Timothy J. Laughlin of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC. The agency was represented by Laurel D. Havens III of DOJ; and Brittany Salter and Kate Calderon of the Army. The defendant-intervenor was represented by Casey J. Mckinnon of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman LLP.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
