The protester argued that the evaluation was unfair. It claimed the Army disproportionately focused on negative aspects of past performance while downplaying positive aspects. The court found the Army’s evaluation was reasonable given the agency’s substantial discretion. The court concluded that the protester had not shown the evaluation lacked a rational basis.
Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 25-533
- Background – The Army sought medical staffing support through a contract. It planned to award based on past performance, technical capability, and price. The protester, the incumbent contractor, argued that the Army did not evaluate proposals according to the solicitation, but rather, applied unstated evaluation criteria. Following a series of corrective actions, the Army re-awarded the contract to the awardee, leading to the protester filing a protest with the GAO and subsequently at the Court of Federal Claims.
- Evaluation of Past Performance – The protester contended that the Army focused disproportionately on negative aspects of its past performance while downplaying positive reports. The court noted that the Army is allowed substantial discretion in evaluating past performance as long as its decision is rational. The court found that the Army considered both positive and negative performance information before arriving at a “Limited Confidence” rating for the protester, indicating the Army acted within its justified discretion.
- Treatment of Affiliates – The protester alleged disparate treatment concerning the evaluation of its affiliates’ past performance compared to how the Army assessed the awardee’s joint venture member performance. The court ruled that the Army appropriately considered affiliates’ performance if relevant to the contract’s requirements. In this case, the Army correctly analyzed the performance records from an affiliate of the awardee and accurately deemed the protester’s affiliate’s performance as less relevant.
- Unstated Evaluation Criteria – The protester argued that the Army relied on unstated evaluation criteria by considering the performance of task orders instead of contracts. However, the court explained that the Army was allowed to review any available information relevant to past performance. The Army’s evaluations of past performance were consistent with the solicitation requirements, which permitted consideration of task orders, thus affirming the Army’s discretion to evaluate accordingly.
The plaintiff is represented by Barbara Ann Duncombe, Suzanne Sumner, Brandon E. Dobyns, Rebecca Pearson, and Alexander Gorelik of Taft Stettinius and Hollister LLP. The intervenor, Global Shield Health Consultants, LLC, is represented by Johnathan Malcom Bailey and Kristin E. Zachman of Cokinos Young. The government is represented by An Hoang, Douglas K. Mickle, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Yaakov M. Roth of the United States Department of Justice.
