Several protesters objected to the evaluation in a large IT procurement. The COFC granted judgment to four protesters. The agency erred in finding these offerors had “not proposed an approach.” The agency may not have liked the protesters’ approach, but each protester had undeniably proposed “an approach.”
Allicent Technology, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 22-1380C et al.
- The Procurement – The Department of Commerce issued a solicitation for IT services. Dozens of offerors submitted proposals. Commerce awarded 15 contracts. Disappointed offerors filed protests with the Court of Federal Claims. The court consolidated the protests.
- Denied Protest Arguments – Every disappointed offeror challenged weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies assessed to their proposals. For the most part, the court denied all of these challenges, finding the various weaknesses justified. The agency had reasonably determined the protesters’ proposals were too vague, hadn’t adequately explained their approach, or had not demonstrated an ability to perform a specific task.
- Successful Protest Arguments – Several protesters, however, were successful in challenging a type of weakness Commerce assessed to multiple proposals. Commerce penalized several offerors for not providing an approach to tasks in the PWS. The court found these weaknesses were unjustified. In several cases, the protesters had explicitly stated in their proposal “our approach is . . . .” While the agency may not have liked the approach, one could not reasonably say the protester had not provided an approach. If the agency objected to the approach, it had to articulate a more specific objection—e.g., lack of detail—which it had not done.
- Judgment for Four Protesters – The court found these lack-of-approach weaknesses prejudiced four protesters: Ekagra, Can Softtech, Syneren, and JCS Solutions. The court granted judgment and injunctive relief to those protesters.
Protester Allicent is represented by W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, and Mary Ann Hanke of Maynard, Cooper & Gale. Protester Ekagra Partners is represented by Jon D. Levin, Joshua B Duvall ,and Nicholas P. Greer of Maynard Cooper & Gale, Protester CAN Softtech is represented Stephen P. Ramaley, C. Peter Dungan, and Roger V. Abbott of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Protester Syneren Technologies Corp. is represented by Alexander B. Ginsburg, Michael J. Anstett and Katherine I. St. Romain of Freid, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. Protester GenceTek, LLC is represented Adam K. Lasky, Erica L. Bakies, and Sarah F. Burgart of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Protester RarisRex, LLC is represented by William M. Jack and Ken M. Kanzawa for Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Protester AttainX is represented by Matthew P. Moriarty, John M. Mattox, Ian P. Patterson, and Timothy Laughlin of Schoonover & Moriarty LLC. Protester JCS Solutions is represented by Brandon Graves, Tyler J. Freiberger, and Heather B. Mims of Centre Law & Consulting. Protester SaiTech is represented by Shane J. McCall, Nicole D. Pottroff, John L. Holtz, Gregory P. Weber, and Stephanie L. Ellis of Koprince, McCall Pottroff, LLC. Intervenor Brightpoint is represented William A. Shook of the The Law Offices of William J. Shook and Steven Barentzen of The Law Officers of Steven Barentzen. Intervenor Koniag Management is represented by David Francis Dowd of Potomac Law Group, PLLC. Intervenor, RIVA Solutions is represented by Elizabeth N. Jochum and Samrath Barot of Blank Rome, LLP. Intervenor Halvik is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of Brittin Law Group and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. Intervenor ProGov Partners is represented by Craig A. Holman and Julia Swafford of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Intervenor VenTech SNAP is represented by Kenneth A. Martin of Martin Law Firm. Intervenor CW-LTS is represented by Kevin P. Mullen and Krista A. Nunez of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Intervenor SONA Networks, LLC is represented by James Y. Boland and Andrew W. Current of Venable LLP. Intervenor MetroIBR is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, and Alissandra D. Young of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Intervenor T and T Consulting is represented by E. Sanderson Hoe and Andrew R. Guy of Covington & Burling LLP. The government is represented by Miles K. Karson, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, Franklin E. White, Jr., Alison S. Vicks, Brittney M. Welch, and Jason X. Hamilton of the Department of Justice as well as by Ryan Lambrecht of the Department of Commerce
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
