Share:
The protester sought to complete or supplement the administrative record with contract modifications. COFC denied the motion since the modifications occurred well after the protested award decision. Thus, the modifications had no effect on the decision itself.
Yona-Brixtel, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 18-1842C
- Background – The agency awarded the intervenor a contract to provide information technology support services to the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. The protester moved to complete or supplement the administrative record with documents concerning contract modifications.
- Complete the Record – The protester argued these modifications were “core documents” that “presumptively qualify for inclusion in the Administrative Record.” The Court disagreed. Completion of the administrative record is appropriate to add information that was considered by the agency during procurement. Here, the modifications were issued well after the contract award, meaning they were not a part of the decision.
- Supplement the Record – The protester moved in the alternative for supplementation of the record with the same material. It relied on a list of circumstances in East West, Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 53, 56–57 (2011) where supplementation may be permitted. COFC found the modification records did not fall into any of the relevant categories. (e.g. – the modifications were not technical explanations relating to the award decisions, not relied upon by the agency, not inappropriately ignored, etc.)
The protester was represented by Charlotte R. Rosen of Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. The defendant was represented by Emma E. Bond of DOJ. The intervenor was represented by Eric S. Montalvo of Federal Practice Group.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
Share:
