The protester complained the agency hadn’t sufficiently explained its decision to not assess additional strengths. The COFC didn’t see a problem. The agency found the protester’s approach adequate. There’s only so much an agency can say about an adequate approach.
DigiFlight, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 23-348
- Additional Strengths – The protester contended the agency should’ve assigned different strengths to its proposal. The court found the protester’s arguments amounted to disagreement. The protester’s argument—which consisted of a “mechanical recitation” of the proposal with a blanket statement that its approach warranted strengths—was not enough to show the evaluation was deficient.
- Lack of Documentation – The protester complained the agency had not provided a reasonable explanation of its decision to not assess additional strengths. But the court reasoned that unless the agency is penalizing an approach or noting its superiority, it doesn’t need to provide much documentation when an approach is merely adequate. What’s more, in this case, the solicitation was government by FAR 8.4 simplified procedures. Thus, the documentation requirement was even less stringent.
- Debrief Requirement – The protester alleged the agency was obligated to respond to debriefing questions under DFARS 252.216.7010. The court noted that DFARS provision was adopted after the agency issued the solicitation. And even if that provision applied, it only governs competitive negotiated procurements. This was a simplified FSS procurement under FAR 8.4.
- Price Criteria – The solicitation stated the importance of price would increase as the difference between non-price factors decreased. The protester claimed the agency hadn’t complied with this criterion because it selected the awardee’s higher-priced proposal. The court, however, found the agency reasonably selected the higher-priced proposal because the awardee’s and the protester’s proposals were quite different under the non–price factors. The awardee had two strengths the protester lacked.
- Eligibility of Awardee – The solicitation had been issued to holders of a blanket purchase agreements (BPA). The protester argued the awardee was ineligible because its BPA had expired before award. The court reasoned that while the FAR required the solicitation to be issued to BPA holders, it did not require disqualification when an offeror needed to renew its BPA. In any event, the court reasoned the protester was improperly equating a BPA to an FSS contract. A FSS holder cannot bid when its FSS contract has expired. But a BPA is not a contract. Allowing the awardee to proceed with an expired BPA did not violate CICA’s full and open competition requirement.
The protester is represented by Roderic G. Steakley, Benjamin R. Little, and Jerome S. Gabig of Dentons Sirote PC. The government is represented by Margaret J. Jantzen, Deborah A. Bynum, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brian M. Boynton of the Department of Justice.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
